Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Martin Redmond Esq., Member for Don Valley. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and his friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Public Expenditure

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is public expenditure in Wales per head of population as a percentage of the figure for England [9907]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): In 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available, identifiable general Government expenditure in Wales per head was 116 per cent. of that in England.

Mr. Jenkin: Although a representative of an English constituency and a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Scottish Office Minister, may I nevertheless offer my right hon. Friend congratulations to Wales on the result of the rugby international on Saturday?
If the Government were promising to increase spending on health and pensions—and promising sabbaticals for teachers—while promising to hold the level of taxation at the level set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would that not be deeply dishonest and misleading to the British people?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend's comments about Saturday's match will be welcomed by all Welsh Members in the House. It was a magnificent advertisement for the game of rugby—the beginning of what we hope will be a magnificent run-up to the rugby world cup at Cardiff in 1999. Opposition Members should reflect that it just goes to show that teams that are written off at the beginning of the season can soon come back and win.
My hon. Friend is right: it would be an example of extraordinary double standards and double-speak to vote against every measure to control public spending, against the reduction in benefits for asylum seekers and against

the Jobseekers Bill, while maintaining that one agreed with the total plans for public spending. That extraordinary double-speak raises the question: if the public spending plans are agreed by all, how would Opposition Members finance the time-wasting and self-defeating load of hot air that they call an assembly?

Mr. Ainger: Does the Secretary of State recall his announcement, just a few months ago, on public expenditure in Wales, when he said that the national health service in Wales would receive a year-on-year real terms increase in expenditure? Can he therefore explain why Dyfed-Powys health authority announced on 20 December that, because of its financial crisis, it planned possibly to close eight community hospitals, to change the role of another six out of the total of 19, and to make cuts at all four district general hospitals? The hospital in my constituency has revealed that that would mean the closure of one acute ward. How does the right hon. Gentleman square those two statements, which were made just a few weeks apart? Does he agree that the Dyfed-Powys health authority is significantly underfunded by the Welsh Office?

Mr. Hague: No. I have made it clear that the NHS was the principal beneficiary of the public spending decisions that I announced in November. In every year of the coming Parliament, a Conservative Government will ensure that spending on the NHS in Wales is increased over and above inflation—a commitment that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has refused to match. It will not have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) that there are many demands on the health service, and that health service managers must choose between priorities. The proposals by Dyfed-Powys health authority to which the hon. Gentleman referred are for consultation; they are not being implemented at this moment. It must choose between priorities, but it and all other parts of the NHS in Wales will continue to benefit from the increased resources that we have delivered, which we have promised for the future, but which Opposition Members fail to guarantee.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a level of public expenditure that is so high that the shadow Chancellor says that there is no need to increase it. How does the shadow Chancellor square that with the request of individual Labour Members to increase every item of public expenditure? Does my right hon. Friend think that that is because the shadow Chancellor is wise enough not to read his colleagues' speeches, or sufficiently innumerate not to be able to add up the sums?

Mr. Hague: Not only does the shadow Chancellor evidently not agree with many Opposition Members, who persistently call for higher spending: he does not agree with himself and the way he has voted over the past few years in this Parliament. The people of Wales need to worry about whether changes to our constitutional arrangements would result in significantly and permanently lower public spending per head in Wales. If there were to be a Welsh Assembly, there could be no guarantee that the public spending formula would be


preserved. Those who would rip up our constitutional arrangements show a reckless disregard for the true interests of Wales.

Mr. Wigley: I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State was shouting for Wales on Saturday; I wonder whether he will be doing that when Wales plays England on 15 March.
Does the Secretary of State agree that what he has described as identifiable public expenditure does not include large tracts of public spending, such as defence? Wales gets only 1.5 per cent. of defence procurement, while 55 per cent. goes to south-east England. Compared with Ireland, Wales does poorly out of the European Union: Ireland receives £478 a head whereas Wales receives £45 a head. If Wales had a Parliament of its own, with a voice in Europe, we would be doing much better than we do under the right hon. Gentleman's regime.

Mr. Hague: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be cheering for Wales in any rugby match against anybody, including England—although I might stay out of a cricket match between Glamorgan and Yorkshire. I shall, however, be cheering for Wales against England.
Defence is not included in identifiable Government expenditure, which was the basis of my answer to the question. If the hon. Gentleman honestly believes that we should swap our economic circumstances with those of Ireland, where unemployment is dramatically higher than in Wales and when Wales is benefiting from record inward investment, he must be out of his mind.

Sir Irvine Patnick: My right hon. Friend has mentioned a Welsh Assembly twice. Will he explain the difference between a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly? Will he also—

Madam Speaker: Order. That point does not relate to the question.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Jenkins that the Opposition would welcome in the House today is not the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), but Neil, who scored 19 of our points on Saturday in Edinburgh? Does he agree that the Opposition and the bulk of the Welsh nation also look forward to the day in June 1999 when there will not only be a Welsh Assembly, but Wales will be playing New Zealand, or possibly South Africa, in the final of the rugby world cup in Cardiff?

Madam Speaker: Order. We have had enough of this knockabout: let us get on with the questions.

Mr. Morgan: In the meantime, should we not concentrate on eliminating the waste and inefficiency in the Welsh Office, and the excess bureaucracy in the national health service, nursery vouchers and such nonsensical paper-chase schemes?

Mr. Hague: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening sentiments about the rugby world cup final. I also agree about reducing waste in government. That is why I am reducing, in cash terms, the running costs of non-departmental public bodies in Wales and of the

Welsh Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all waste is being rooted out of the administration in Wales, but that still leaves the question how he and his colleagues would hope to finance their assembly.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authority (a) high schools and (b) primary schools he has visited to discuss education provision; and if he will make a statement. [9908]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): In the LEA-maintained sector, my right hon. Friend has visited eight high schools and six primary schools since July 1995. Since my appointment in June, I have visited four high schools and six primary schools. We have both discussed a range of education issues on those occasions. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), has also visited a number of schools. In fact, all three Welsh Office Ministers visited schools last week.

Mr. Jones: Has not teacher morale nose-dived since the publication of the new pension arrangements? Is it not true that there has been a flood of applications for early retirement from teachers in Wales? Does he agree that schools now find it hard to employ mature teachers and that LEAs are strapped for cash?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to correct much of the misinformation relating to the Government's proposals that has been spread, not least by some Labour Members. Some 80 per cent. of teachers retire before the age of 60, and widespread concerns have been expressed about that, not least by the Government Actuary and the Public Accounts Committee, which have led to the consultation recently launched by the Department for Education and Employment. It is not the Government's aim in any way to do away with early retirement for teachers, as has been claimed. In fact, in the current settlement for the next financial year, we have funded on the basis of 75 per cent. of current retirement levels. I am bound to make the point, however, that four out of five teachers retiring before 60 means too much expertise being lost from our schools.

Mr. Win Griffiths: When the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh Office Ministers have visited schools, have they noticed the size of classes, especially in primary schools? Is he satisfied with the share of the Welsh Office budget that goes to local authorities for education purposes which, this year, has increased by less than the rate of inflation? Can he explain why there are more than 5,000 more children in primary school classes of more than 30 children than there were at the beginning of the 1990s?

Mr. Evans: When Welsh Office Ministers visit schools, we believe in being frank with teachers and I shall be frank with the hon. Gentleman. Since 1979, class sizes have not increased considerably—they are certainly slightly larger, but there is no greatly measurable difference. The point that I must make is that the Labour


party controls many of the local education authorities in Wales, and figures that I released last week show that the areas of Wales in which there are the largest class sizes are those that are controlled by the Labour party. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be better employed directing his strictures to his friends in local government.

Welsh Language

Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the Welsh Language Act 1993. [9909]

Mr. Hague: Excellent progress has been made in the three years since the Act became law. The Welsh Language Board has approved the Welsh language schemes of 21 public sector bodies and been active and successful in encouraging greater use of the language in the private and voluntary sectors. Late last year, the board published its "Strategy for the Welsh Language" which sets out clear priorities to build on recent advances and ensure that the language continues to prosper.

Sir Wyn Roberts: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on emulating that eximious performance on Saturday, which we can no longer mention? His has been the first Government Department to produce an acceptable—indeed, splendid—scheme under the Welsh Language Act, and it has encouraged other Government Departments and public bodies in Wales to produce similar schemes, which will be of great benefit to the language. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that all that has been achieved at no unreasonable or inordinate cost?

Mr. Hague: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. The Welsh Office scheme was approved by the Welsh Language Board last November. It took effect last week, and it has certainly been implemented without inordinate or significant cost. It is a sign of the tremendous commitment to the Welsh language of the present Government, who have done more for the Welsh language than any previous Government, largely thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend. We shall continue with our policies to secure the place of the Welsh language, not only in this country's heritage and culture, but in its future as well.

Inward Investment

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to attract inward investment to north Wales. [9910]

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of inward investment to Wales in 1996. [9911]

Mr. Hague: More than 150 inward investment projects were recorded in 1996, promising about 15,000 new jobs and investment of more than £2.5 billion. Those exceptional results show that our policies are working well. North Wales is sharing in the success story, as projects by companies such as JCB and Toyo Seal clearly show. There is further good news today for north Wales.
I am pleased to announce that British Aerospace will be investing a further £45 million at Broughton in a project that will create 100 new jobs and safeguard a further 60.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, in particular the welcome news of further inward investment to north Wales. I am sure that everyone will greet it with enthusiasm. It will reassure the people of north Wales that, under a Conservative Government, fair play is guaranteed.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour's proposed assembly in Cardiff, which would be dominated by the south Wales mafia, would discriminate against north Wales and deprive it of further much-needed inward investment? In short—new Labour, no new jobs.

Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his reference to today's announcement by British Aerospace, which is a triumph for the Broughton work force. That plant plays a key part in an extremely successful European collaboration. It further enhances the reputation of Wales as a country that delivers world-class products. We should all be delighted by the news.
My hon. Friend was also right to draw attention to the danger to future job programmes and the creation of more jobs of establishing an assembly. That is not the only danger represented by the Labour party—minimum wages, social chapters and all the other job-destroying nonsense in which it believes represent a danger to the growth of jobs in the country.

Mr. Spring: Is not the Lucky Goldstar investment in south Wales the largest investment ever undertaken in Europe? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that Wales has been an important beneficiary of the massive investment flows into the United Kingdom that have been so successfully secured by this Conservative Government?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right—LG was not only the most spectacular success for Wales last year: it was the most spectacular success in securing investment anywhere in Europe in modern times. The benefits of that investment will flow to Wales for many years. None of the inward investment flowing into Wales on such a scale over the past 10 to 15 years would have happened if we had not secured low inflation through economic discipline and good industrial relations through changes in trade union law, or if we were still spending millions of pounds on grants to nationalised industries rather than on bringing investing firms into Britain.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a growing danger that inward investment is getting out of kilter in terms both of geography and of the nature of the investment? He will know that, in the area from Bridgend to Llanelli, there is a concentration of car component firms and manufacturing engineering skills. Is not it now time for the Welsh Office actively to pursue investment in a car assembly plant in that area, which could take advantage of those skills?

Mr. Hague: Of course we would welcome a car assembly plant in Wales. It is something that we want to work on over the coming months and years. However, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the flow


of inward investment to Wales has helped to bring about the diversification of the Welsh economy, rather than its concentration. Now, it is an economy strong in automotive components but also in aerospace, electronics and medical devices. We want that diversification to continue. If ever it were to include a car assembly plant, I would be delighted.

Mr. Llwyd: Welcome as today's announcement is, it is noteworthy that, once again, it is investment in the east of Wales. Just before Christmas, the Minister gave me an encouraging reply about dealing with the imbalance between investment in the east and in the west of Wales. Precisely what steps are being taken to redress that imbalance?

Mr. Hague: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will not be churlish about investment going to the eastern parts—in this case, the north-eastern parts—of Wales, because it brings benefits to the whole of Wales and puts the whole of Wales on the map for international companies around the world. He is of course right to highlight the need to ensure that investment goes to the west of Wales as well. That is why I have asked the Development Board for Rural Wales to move 50 per cent. of its activity to the west. It is also why I set the Welsh Development Agency targets for investment outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. It is also why I have included in the WDA's budget for the forthcoming year money for the development of strategic sites, which must include sites in the west and north-west of Wales. We shall make every effort to ensure that all parts of Wales benefit from future investment.

Mr. Sweeney: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how the Vale of Glamorgan has benefited hugely from inward investment and the provision of new, well-paid, high-tech jobs? In particular, can he tell the House about how more alternators are made by Bosch in Wales than at the parent plant in Stuttgart; and about how that plant supplies a great deal of the European motor industry? Can he further tell the House about Ford's successes at Bridgend, where the new V8 engine is being produced for the Jaguar sports car, which is selling brilliantly all over the world? Can he tell the House about the success of the development by Associated British Ports of the docks area; and about the help given by the Welsh Development Agency? Will he tell the House about the success of the British Airways maintenance base at Cardiff international airport, and about the several chemical plants—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apply to me for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Hague: I would have told the House about those successes, but my hon. Friend has done it for me. I have seen many of them for myself—including the British Airways maintenance centre at Cardiff airport, the Dow Corning plant and other places in my hon. Friend's constituency. I wish that some of the publicity given in the past week to Ford's difficulties had been balanced by references in the national media to the tremendous investment and expansion undertaken by Ford at Bridgend.

Mr. Ron Davies: May I first ask you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on the wisdom of the Secretary of State's choosing to link these two questions? They seem quite distinct and better dealt with independently.
I extend a welcome to the news the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon about British Aerospace at Broughton. I had the pleasure of visiting that site late last year with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the Leader of the Opposition. We were all impressed with the work of the trade unions, the management and other local interests in putting together that package, and its success is welcome news.
Undoubtedly 1996 was a good year for inward investment. I assure the Secretary of State that the Welsh Development Agency will remain a very high priority under the revised spending programmes of any future Labour Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, however, that there is resentment among his colleagues in Cabinet at the devolution to the Welsh Office of the power to hid for outside projects? Will he therefore assure us that he will veto the suggestion being canvassed in the Conservative party that that power be stripped from the Welsh Office and centralised in Whitehall if his party is returned to power after the election?

Mr. Hague: There is no question whatever of any such change in the powers of the Welsh Office.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that policies such as the minimum wage, the social chapter and more integration with Europe would damage inward investment, threaten our economic success and harm our sovereignty?

Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Employment in Wales has grown by 95,000 over the past 10 years, in large measure due to inward investment. It is greatly to the credit of the people of Wales that such investment has been made in Wales—and greatly to the credit of the Government. It will not continue at the same pace and in the same way under any other Government.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit Catalonia to examine the system of government. [9912]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): None.

Mr. Mackinlay: While I recognise the big difference between the Government and the Opposition about the future governance of the United Kingdom, would it not be prudent for a Minister to investigate and explore the full domestic devolved government in Catalonia as a model for both Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree that the devolved government of Catalonia has not only strengthened Spanish democracy but is a model of subsidiarity that has enhanced the Catalan culture and language? No Catalan of great repute has any difficulty in identifying with Catalonia as well as Spain.

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend has led a trade mission to Catalonia, and met President Pujol. I too met President Pujol when he visited the Welsh Office and I formally received him. We are very familiar with the situation in Catalonia. I note that the Catalan national


party fared badly in the last elections because of its association with the Spanish equivalent of the Labour party. In an important poll recently undertaken in Wales among 3,000 electors, the Labour party's version of a Welsh Assembly was supported by only 12.2 per cent.; those who supported some form of assembly for Wales amounted to only 28.7 per cent.; and the largest number, who wanted no truck with it at all that, amounted to some 44.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, dismissive, but those 3,000 electors are important to me as they come from the Cardiff, North constituency.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the assisted places scheme on Welsh comprehensive schools. [9913]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have made no assessment. The assisted places scheme enhances parental choice and has proved popular with parents who could not otherwise have had their child educated in the independent sector.

Mr. Flynn: Do not standards in all teams—in education and elsewhere—fall when high flyers are removed, and are not those standards restored when the stars return? Do not our schools need brilliant pupils in the same way as they need brilliant teachers? Are not our schools impoverished by the loss of high flyers and stars—those who set the pace, such as the Quinnells and the Gibbs? Would not school standards be restored if such pupils were allowed to continue to act as school leaders and pupils whom all other pupils seek to emulate? Why do the Government persist with a scheme that robs all our schools of their most brilliant pupils?

Mr. Evans: Most assessments that I have heard of last Saturday's match say that Scott Gibbs, Scott Quinnell and Allan Bateman gained from the experience of rugby league and that that was what gave the extra edge to their play. The Government's policy increases choice and opportunity. At least the hon. Gentleman has the merit of consistency: he has always opposed choice in education. At the weekend, his local newspaper quoted him as saying that schemes such as the assisted place scheme rob council schools of pupils.
The same could be said about the grant-maintained system, the independent system and the rest. His policy is to ensure that there is no choice or opportunity. Moreover, he is out of step with his own supporters. He may have noticed the MORI poll in The Times today, which shows that 64 per cent. of those who profess support for the Liberal Democrats and 55 per cent. of those who profess support for the Labour party approve of the assisted places scheme—so we shall no doubt see the Labour party's policy change tomorrow.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals, which he may have seen, to abolish the assisted places scheme are not properly costed, as they do not allow for those who would have to return to the state system if it were abolished? Will he also confirm that Labour's scheme is real, old, unreconstructed socialism, levelling everybody down to the lowest common denominator, instead of allowing those from poor families to rise to the limit of their abilities?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right; the Opposition's proposals are a fraud on the electorate. He is also right to

say that pupils will need to be educated, and cost is attached to that. The assisted places scheme budget is 0.27 per cent. of the total LEA schools budget in Wales, and we shall not revisit the subject for three years because the contractual obligation between the Government and the schools that are part of the scheme provides that the scheme should remain in operation for three years in any event. The Opposition claim that there would be additional money for education, but where would it come from?

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that the Education Bill, including provision for the assisted places scheme, is irrelevant to the needs of Wales and that if it were implemented it could be damaging? Does he accept that we need legislation in Wales to create a rational and effective education system targeted to our needs, and that that legislation should be devised and enacted in Wales? Is not a Parliament for Wales with legislative power urgently needed?

Mr. Evans: I accept that the majority of children in Wales will continue to be educated in local education authority schools. The hon. Gentleman and the Opposition parties are hostile to the choice and opportunity presented by parents and governors choosing to go down the grant-maintained route, by the existence of the independent sector and by the promotion of opportunities for a limited number of children to participate in the assisted places scheme. I do not understand how a well-meaning person like the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate such hostility to the choice and opportunity available to young people in Wales.

Welsh Assembly

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on a referendum for a Welsh Assembly. [9914]

Mr. Hague: Three.

Mr. Hendry: That is an unbelievable reply. Does not my right hon. Friend find it astonishing that only one person in a million in Wales has bothered to make representations on that centrepiece of Labour party policy? Does not that show that the people of Wales are not prepared to put inward investment and their new jobs at risk by going down that line? Does it not show also that they know that they would end up paying more in taxes to pay for a Welsh Assembly, and that a Labour Government in Wales would end in tears there, as it would in the rest of the country?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend's suspicions may be right. In any referendum, the people of Wales would not vote for such a time-wasting and self-defeating charade. The encouraging news for the people of Wales is that an increasing number of Opposition Members would not vote for such a time-wasting and self-defeating charade. Two more Opposition Members announced last week that they would oppose the policy of the Labour party in any referendum—the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell). That news was greeted, ludicrously, by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) with the statement, "We shall be


fighting a united campaign." I am pleased that an increasing number of Opposition Members will join us in arguing at the general election against a referendum on an assembly, against an assembly and against the construction of a body that would be against the true interests of Wales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the fact that only three people bothered to write to the Secretary of State suggest, rather, that people see no relevance in writing to a lame-duck leader of a lame-duck Government?

Mr. Hague: There is a lot of quacking to come from us yet. The number of representations shows that the people of Wales regard the subject of devolution as an utter irrelevance to their future. They know that the real way to ensure the continuation of the jobs that have been flowing into Wales in recent years is to continue with the policies and constitutional arrangements that have been in place for many years.

Mr. Robathan: When my right hon. Friend considers those three representations, will he bear in mind the fact that Wales is a nation, and that that is important in considering a separate assembly or parliament? Will he consider carefully who should be able to vote? Will people who live in England but who were born in Wales be allowed to vote? Surely they are members of that nation. Will those who live in Wales, such as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who comes from South Africa, be allowed to vote? Should not—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman get the question off his chest, and do so rapidly? We have many questions to get through, and I have a lot of Welsh Members to call.

Mr. Robathan: Madam Speaker, I shall be applying for an Adjournment debate, of course.
Will my right hon. Friend consider whether all citizens of the United Kingdom should be allowed to determine whether Wales has a separate assembly?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend raises some interesting questions about whether everyone in the United Kingdom should vote on something that affects the whole United Kingdom—and certainly whether all Welsh people should have a vote rather than only those who are resident in Wales at the time. If we were to witness the tragedy of a Labour Government, Labour Members would have to resolve that question, as well as the question whether their colleagues would be allowed to say what they think in a referendum rather than swallowing the party line that they do not believe is in the true interests of Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: Madam Speaker, I must protest: the Secretary of State is attempting to answer questions about Labour party policy, and I put it to you that that is quite improper. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman gets so hot under the collar about the prospects of our having a say in our own affairs.
According to the latest independent polls in Wales, 78 per cent. of Welsh people from all walks of life support Labour's plan for a referendum about our proposals for constitutional change. Does the Secretary of State know

that last week a group of prominent business men and women in Wales declared their determination to campaign for a yes vote in any future referendum? They understand—presumably the Secretary of State will consider the matter—that a stronger voice in Europe, a distinctive marketing identity and strong public-private partnerships in an open and democratic framework offer a unique opportunity to improve the performance of the Welsh economy. Why does he want to deny us the right to have a say about our destiny? Is it because he enjoys his powers of patronage on behalf of the Conservative party or because he thinks we get better government under the quango state?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman criticises me for answering questions about Labour party policy, but someone has to answer such questions. The last time we asked the hon. Gentleman about Labour party policy regarding an electoral system, he took months to answer and, when he did, two Labour Members joined the opposite camp immediately. That is the kind of answer that we get from the hon. Gentleman.
As for the opinions of business people regarding an assembly, a recent Confederation of British Industry survey found that two out of three businesses believe that an assembly would have a negative economic impact on Wales—and they are right. According to the Institute of Directors, three quarters of businesses surveyed did not want an assembly—and they are right also.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Wales, relative to that in (a) the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [9915]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: For like-for-like comparison purposes, the labour force survey in autumn 1996 found that the unemployment rate in Wales was 8.2 per cent. compared with 7.9 per cent. in the United Kingdom. The European Union average rate in October 1996 was 10.9 per cent.

Mr. Coombs: Is not unemployment now far higher in Germany than in Wales? Is that not a consequence of the fact that more and more German firms are relocating their investment to Wales because they recognise the advantages of doing so? Is it not also a fact that, for every German who will lose his job as a consequence, there is another who is beginning to wish that Germany had never signed up to the social chapter and the other high social costs with which the German economy is now burdened?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) will explain in the Adjournment debate that you have offered him, Madam Speaker, Bosch is achieving far greater productivity in the manufacture of alternators in Vale of Glamorgan than in its plants in Germany. The labour force survey is but a snapshot: the official figures, which were announced last week,


show that Wales is doing better still. Unemployment is falling fast in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and is down to 7.4 per cent. and 6.7 per cent. respectively. That compares with the expanding European figure, which increased by another 0.3 per cent. in the last quarter.

Mr. Hain: Nobody believes the Government's unemployment figures, because they are fiddled. Britain's unemployment situation looks as good as it does in comparison with that of European countries because the figures have been fiddled downwards. Why does the Minister not recognise other figures that reflect the economic inactivity rate? They show that economic inactivity among men of working age is higher in Wales than anywhere else in mainland Britain. What will he do about the hidden joblessness rate in Wales?

Mr. Jones: It is plain that the hon. Gentleman and his party are bereft of arguments when all that they can trot out is the lame claim that the unemployment figures are fiddled. On any comparison, two facts are self-evident: unemployment in Wales and the United Kingdom generally is falling fast, although it remains too high. That is why I cannot understand Labour's slavish devotion to the minimum wage, the social chapter and—to the particular disadvantage of Wales—the imposition of a Welsh Assembly, with all that that would do to deter the inward investment that we have won until now.

School Financial Procedures

Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures exist to allow him to assist a school that finds itself in financial difficulties; and how often he has aided a school by use of such procedures in each of the past three years. [9916]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Responsibility for the funding of local education authority maintained schools rests with unitary authorities. It is open to LEAs to include in their local management of schools schemes arrangements to defer recovery of any overspends until subsequent financial years.

Mr. Touhig: Cwmcarn school in my constituency had a cumulative deficit of £116,000 in the three-year period 1992–95. Accounts published by the school appear to show that the deficit has not been carried forward, but has been written off. Have those debts been written off? If so, did the Secretary of State agree to that, and will he be as generous with other schools in my constituency that are facing similar problems?

Mr. Evans: My earlier reply related to the LEA-maintained sector. As for grant-maintained schools, it is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a loan to any school that finds itself in financial difficulties. To date, it has not been necessary to use that power.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [9938]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The key to effective and efficient prosecutions is close co-operation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Both services are tackling this together through joint performance management to provide early advice to police officers, to improve the timeliness and quality of police files and to reduce paperwork and speed up communications by the increased use of information technology.

Mr. O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service is doing a good job, but there are concerns about the fact that many cases referred to it by the police are not pursued. That causes concern and bitterness in the minds and hearts of the victims of crime, because they fear that they are not getting support from the CPS. The same is true of lenient sentences—the CPS seems to have a weakness of not appealing against them. Will the Attorney-General assure me that those issues will be followed up and that there will be greater efficiency in the CPS on the points that I have raised?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition that, generally, the CPS does a good job. It gets many brickbats and it deserves a bit of praise. He says that some cases brought by the police are not pursued by the CPS. I invite him to write to me with any details that he has on that. He will have heard me say before in the House that I have looked into such claims time and again. Very seldom are those worries—sincere though they are—borne out by the facts. The CPS keeps in close touch with the police. In 75 per cent. of cases, it discusses the issue with the police before dropping a case. In only 4 per cent. of cases that are discussed do they disagree—a tiny proportion.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned unduly lenient sentences. He should completely acquit the CPS of any suggestion that it has failed to deal with unduly lenient sentences. The majority of sentences that I, as Attorney-General, refer are brought to my attention by the CPS, which keeps a close watch on the issue, as well as on cases brought by members of the public and by Members. I am glad to have an opportunity to make that clear.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist all calls, made in the name of efficiency, to give the Crown Prosecution Service the right of audience in the higher courts? That would seriously undermine the strength of the junior Bar and lead inevitably to the abolition of the separation between solicitors and barristers, which is one of the strengths of our criminal justice system.

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. He will know that an application by the Law Society on behalf of employed


solicitors, both generally and in the CPS, is currently before the four senior judges of England and Wales. As for my personal position, I see a case for the CPS to have some power to go into the Crown courts, but on a limited basis. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I stand four square with him on the importance of the independent Bar, and the importance of doing nothing to weaken its long-term position, which is vital to the proper administration of justice.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General satisfied with the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the investigators in the war crimes case of Regina v. Serafinowicz? What did the case cost, and what action does the Attorney-General now propose for other cases that are in the pipeline?
More generally—not with reference to those cases—what is the Attorney-General's view of the expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the organisation of the CPS, the setting up of which I continue to support? In particular, what is his opinion of the MORI poll commissioned by the First Division Association of civil servants, which reported that 90 per cent. of its member respondents believed that the CPS had become worse since they joined it, and that those who spoke up when they disagreed with senior managers could damage their career prospects? Is it not time that an inquiry was conducted?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me a fistful of questions, which I shall try to answer succinctly. First, let me answer his question about the war crimes case against Semion Serafinowicz, which stopped on Friday when a jury found him unfit to plead and I issued a nolle prosequi. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman definitely that the case was skilfully, carefully and scrupulously investigated and prosecuted by the police and the CPS. The matter came before the chief metropolitan magistrate last year, and he was perfectly satisfied that there was abundant evidence to commit to trial. All legal arguments were carried out at the end of last year before the trial judge, who was also satisfied that there was a proper case to go to trial; but, of course, when the defendant was unfit to plead it was absolutely proper to bring it to a close, as I did. That is what a nolle prosequi does.
The total costs of the war crimes investigations to the end of last year—to date, effectively—are approximately £6 million for the Metropolitan police and £2 million for the CPS, but that covers not only the Serafinowicz case but 369 other cases that were investigated, some very briefly because people were soon found to be dead and there was nothing further to pursue, and others in greater detail. There remain five cases in regard to which investigations continue.
Let me turn to the wider question of the MORI poll on the organisation of the CPS, which we have discussed before. I believe that the CPS, in which people work extremely hard, is very well organised. Only a small sample replied to the poll, which was conducted only within members of the FDA. About 12 per cent. of the entire CPS responded, which did not give a balanced picture. A much more balanced picture was given by the

CPS's own poll, which was carried out on a much wider basis and which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Sweeney: Has a pilot study of the CPS in Wales been conducted and, if so, with what result?

The Attorney-General: Yes. A pilot study of the CPS monitoring system has been conducted in Wales—the system whereby its own inspectorate has carried out its first pilot project in Wales. I have not yet seen a report, but I believe that the House will greatly welcome the establishment of the inspectorate, which will ensure high and consistent standards throughout the country.

Deregulation

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has for further deregulation proposals within his office. [9939]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible have no regulatory functions to which the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 applies. However, the Crown Prosecution Service continues to work with the police to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens in the prosecution of crime.

Mr. Flynn: Rational deregulation is to be welcomed, but has not the ideologically inspired deregulation of the Crown Prosecution Service left it in a sad position? Morale is at rock bottom and public confidence is at a low ebb. The CPS is thought to pursue trivial offenders when it has a strong case, whereas serious offenders are allowed to run free if the case is weaker. Is not the result of the CPS's conviction-at-all-costs policy that trivial offenders are convicted, whereas many serious offenders get away with it?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's criticisms are entirely misplaced. He talks about morale, but if he and certain of his hon. Friends visited the CPS more often and looked at what it does, they would launch into ill-judged criticism less frequently. The best way in which to help the CPS with morale is to stop criticising it unfairly.

Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to remove the obligation from the Crown Prosecution Service and the prosecuting authorities to prosecute cases under the War Crimes Act 1991 if there is adequate evidence?

The Solicitor-General: I appeared in front of Mr. Justice Potts in Sheffield for three days between 17 and 19 December. He heard arguments that the case amounted to an abuse of process, in part based on the lapse of time since the events took place. After he had heard all the arguments, he concluded that there was no abuse of process and that the case was fit to proceed. The case came to an end last week only because a jury found that the defendant's mental state, which had declined rapidly in the past six months, did not allow him to be tried. The principle, however, is plain: if there is


evidence—and there was in that case—and if the defendant is fit to be tried, we will prosecute firmly and resolutely.

Public Interest Immunity Certificates

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to announce the results of his review of public interest immunity certificates. [9940]

The Attorney-General: I made a statement to the House on the Government's new approach to public interest immunity on 18 December 1996. A paper setting out the Government's conclusions was placed in the Library.

Mr. Cohen: Does not the announced reform of the public interest immunity certificate system amount to a success for Lord Justice Scott? Would not the Government still have used it, even under the new system, to thwart justice in the Matrix Churchill case? Is the Attorney-General able to confirm that the blanket ban will go, and that real harm and damage to the public interest will have to be proved to a judge in every case? Will not that new system still facilitate cover-ups, especially in cases involving breaches of arms embargoes, the Prison Service and the police?

The Attorney-General: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I emphasise very strongly that there were no cover-ups through public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case. It is about time that he realised that.
We consulted widely and paid great attention to the advice of Sir Richard Scott and the many others who responded. As I told the House on 18 December, the new test—that a certificate will be issued only if the documents or information in question, if disclosed, would be likely to cause real harm or real damage—was recommended by the Lord Chief Justice and adopted by the Government.
As I also told the House, many of the problems were put aside when the House of Lords, in the case of ex parte Wiley in 1994—two years after the Matrix Churchill case—changed the system and gave Ministers much more discretion. The hon. Gentleman will want to have those three important points well in mind.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem with the Matrix Churchill

and other arms-to-Iraq cases involving public interest immunity certificates was that Ministers did not have discretion about whether to use them? Will he confirm that the new system will allow such discretion and will permit Ministers to attach notes describing the exact problem in each case?

The Attorney-General: Yes, my hon. Friend is right that one of the reasons for such wide misconceptions about the use of certificates in the Matrix Churchill case was that Ministers had little discretion and it was necessary to have more certificates than would now be the case. My hon. Friend will also realise that the matter was distorted out of proportion. Those who have followed it carefully will realise that.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the current success rate of the Crown Prosecution Service in the north-west. [9941]

The Solicitor-General: The north-west area of the Crown Prosecution Service makes a strong contribution to the overall success of the service. The number and proportion of cases discontinued has been reduced to below the national average and conviction rates in the magistrates and Crown courts are 98.5 per cent. and 91.6 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Thurnham: What are the Law Officers doing to increase the number of convictions of child sex offenders, in view of the low conviction rates, which are currently estimated at below 5 per cent., and mounting public concern about scandals in child care homes in the north-west?

The Solicitor-General: The law has been changed a number of times in recent years. Normally, a child complainant in such a case will make the original complaint to a social worker, and it will be recorded on video tape. At the hearing, that video tape will stand as the child's evidence-in-chief and cross-examination will be by means of a live video link, with the child in a separate room. The methods that we now adopt in the courts to try to get at the truth in paedophile cases are a great advance on the methods that were in use 10 or 15 years ago.

Orders of the Day — Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

INFORMATION CONCERNING JURORS

'.—(1) Section 85 of the 1995 Act (citation and attendance of jurors) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the words from "but" to the end shall cease to have effect.
(3) For subsection (2), there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(2) A list of jurors shall—

(a) contain not less than 30 names;
(b) be prepared under the directions of the clerk of the court before which the trial is to take place;
(c) be kept at the office of the sheriff clerk of the district in which the court of the trial diet is situated; and
(d) be headed "List of Assize for the sitting of the High Court of Justiciary (or the sheriff court of … at … ) on the … of…".

(2A) The clerk of the court before which the trial is take place shall, on an application made to him by or on behalf of an accused, supply the accused, free of charge, on the day on which the trial diet is called, and before the oath has been administered to the jurors for the trial of the accused, with a copy of a list of jurors prepared under subsection (2) above.
(2B) Where an accused has been supplied under subsection (2A) above with a list of jurors—

(a) neither he nor any person acting on his behalf shall make a copy of that list, or any part thereof; and
(b) he or his representative shall return the list to the clerk of the court after the oath has been administered to the jurors for his trial.

(2C) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2B) above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would introduce a minor but welcome change to the procedure for handling the list of assize, which gives details concerning the jurors who are to be empanelled in a trial. We think that in a small way the new clause would contribute towards making it more difficult to threaten or intimidate jurors and it is therefore welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

PRECOGNITIONS

'.—(1) After section 67 of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Failure of witness to attend for, or give evidence on, precognition

67A.—(l) This section applies where a prosecutor has obtained a warrant to cite a witness for precognition and has served a citation for precognition on the witness.
(2) Where this section applies, a witness who—

(a) fails without reasonable excuse, after receiving at least 48 hours notice, to attend for precognition by a prosecutor at the time and place mentioned in the citation served on him; or
(b) refuses when so cited to give information within his knowledge regarding any matter relative to the commission of the offence in relation to which such precognition is taken,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 21 days.".
(2) In section 140 of the 1995 Act (citation)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "for" there shall be inserted the words "—

(a) the citation of witnesses for precognition by the prosecutor, whether or not any person has been charged with the offence in relation to which the precognition is taken; and
(b)"; and

(b) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would introduce some useful procedures to assist the operation of the courts in relation to precognitions.

Mr. John McAllion: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on belonging to a family with such sound political judgment. I understand that his big brother the duke attacked the Tory party this morning and I am sure that that was welcome news throughout Scotland. Even better news was that his younger brother is a member of Scotland United and a strong supporter of a Scottish Parliament.
The Minister has stated that he sent a letter to hon. Members explaining that, because of the changes brought about by the legislation, there were likely to be more precognitions under summary proceedings and that, as a result, some witnesses would fail to attend. He wrote that it was therefore important that the prosecutor should be able to impose fines on those who failed to attend. Why has the defence not been given the same facility as the prosecutor?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If a serious crime is being heard and key Crown witnesses fail to attend, the prosecutor has a right to ask the police to collect them and those people have to explain their non-attendance to the court. That practice has operated for years. The new clause deals with the fact that there is no direct statutory punishment for failing to attend a citation for precognition under solemn procedure. Under summary procedure—


where there are few precognitions—a provision for punishment exists. That is an anomaly, and we feel that there should be consistency between summary and solemn procedure in such cases. The new clause would make it an offence to fail to attend for precognition in solemn procedure.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was that this right is not available to the defence. Very often during the preparation of a proper defence, solicitors charged with that responsibility have great difficulty in persuading witnesses to make themselves available for precognition. The very sensible point put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East is that if one can go to court to get a warrant on behalf of the prosecution in relation to a witness who will not present himself for precognition, why should not a similar right be available to the defence?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had served on the Committee and tabled an amendment, I would have been only too happy to consider it. It is necessary to consult the judges on such issues and to come to a considered view, and there may be time for the matter to be considered during further debates on the Bill. In a serious case—such as a murder case—the prosecutor has the right to make such a request to the court if any key witnesses do not turn up.

Mr. McAllion: Nobody is questioning the right of the prosecution to seek such a warrant. We are asking about the right of the defence. I take it from the Minister's last answer that it will be possible to table an amendment during the Lords' consideration of the Bill to give the same right to the defence, and that the Government will accept it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Section 291 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already contains the procedure for defence witnesses. I recommend that the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East study that section. If they are dissatisfied with its terms, we can consider the matter further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN SENTENCES PENDING DETERMINATION OF APPEAL

'.—(1) After section 121 of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Suspension of certain sentences pending determination of appeal

121A.—(1) Where an intimation of intention to appeal or, in the case of an appeal under section 106(1)(b) to (e), 108 or 108A of this Act, a note of appeal is lodged, the court may on the application of the appellant direct that the whole, or any remaining part, of a relevant sentence shall be suspended until the appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined.
(2) Where the court has directed the suspension of the whole or any remaining part of a person's relevant sentence, the person shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, appear personally in court on the day or days fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

(3) Where a person fails to appear personally in court as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the court may—

(a) if he is the appellant—

(i) decline to consider the appeal; and
(ii) dismiss it summarily; or

(b) whether or not he is the appellant—

(i) consider and determine the appeal; or
(ii) make such other order as the court thinks fit.

(4) In this section "relevant sentence" means any one or more of the following

(a) a probation order;
(b) a supervised attendance order made under section 236(6) of this Act;
(c) a community service order;
(d) a restriction of liberty order.".

(2) After section 193 of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
"Suspension of certain sentences pending determination of appeal

193A.—(1) Where a convicted person or the prosecutor appeals to the High Court under section 175 of this Act, the court may on the application of the appellant direct that the whole, or any remaining part, of a relevant sentence shall be suspended until the appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined.
(2) Where the court has directed the suspension of the whole or any remaining part of a person's relevant sentence, the person shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, appear personally in court on the day or days fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
(3) Where a person fails to appear personally in court as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the court may—

(a) if he is the appellant—

(i) decline to consider the appeal; and
(ii) dismiss it summarily; or

(b) whether or not he is the appellant—

(i) consider and determine the appeal; or
(ii) make such other order as the court thinks fit.

(4) In this section "relevant sentence" means any one or more of the following—

(a) a probation order;
(b) a supervised attendance order made under section 236(6) of this Act;
(c) a community service order;
(d) a restriction of liberty order.".'.—[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 would deal with a problem that has been encountered in the application of the Crown's right of appeal against certain disposals of the court by providing a useful procedure in relation to appeals against non-custodial disposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

POWERS OF THE COURT ON REMAND OR COMMITTAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

'.—(1) Section 51 of the 1995 Act (remand or committal of children and young persons) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "in whose area the court is situated" there shall be substituted the words "which it considers appropriate";
(b) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) if the person is over 16 years of age and subject to a supervision requirement, the court may, instead of committing him to prison, commit him to the local authority which it considers appropriate to be detained as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a) above;" and
(c) in paragraph (b), after the "age", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "to whom paragraph (aa) above does not apply".

(3) In subsection (4), for the words "in whose area the court is situated" there shall be substituted the words "which he considers appropriate".
(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(4A) The local authority which may be appropriate in relation to a power to commit a person under paragraphs (a) or (aa) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) above may. without prejudice to the generality of those powers, be—

(a) the local authority for the area in which the court is situated;
(b) if the person is usually resident in Scotland, the local authority for the area in which he is usually resident;
(c) if the person is subject to a supervision requirement, the relevant local authority within the meaning of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to that requirement.".'.[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 99.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 5 is similar to an Opposition amendment tabled in Committee concerning the committal of a child to local authority care. At that time, I expressed sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, but suggested that it unnecessarily fettered the discretion of the court in making a disposal to the most appropriate local authority. On that basis, I undertook to table a Government amendment on Report. Amendment No. 99 is a technical one.

Madam Speaker: I call Dr. Norman Godman.

Mr. Norman Hogg: He will be brief, Madam Speaker.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am always brief, Madam Speaker.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I try to be brief. I shall be very brief today. How does the Minister define an "appropriate local authority"?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That depends on a number of factors. It may be the local authority in which the child is living, or in which the child is being looked after, but it is not necessarily the authority where the child's permanent residence has been. The new clause would allow the court—in dealing with cases where a young person under 16 years of age is charged with or is convicted of an offence and remanded for trial or for sentence—to commit that young person to a local authority that it considers appropriate. Such a local authority could be the authority in which the court is situated, the authority in which the young person is usually resident or the authority that is already responsible for the young person where he is subject to a supervision requirement.
The amendment replaces the current obligation on the court to commit to the local authority in which it is situated. It gives the court greater flexibility and discretion, which is I am sure what the hon. Gentleman would like and was the tenor of the representations made in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

INCREASED RIGHTS OF APPEAL OF PROSECUTOR

'.—(1) For section 108 of the 1995 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
"Lord Advocate's right of appeal against disposal

108.—(1) Where a person has been convicted on indictment, the Lord Advocate may, in accordance with subsection (2) below, appeal against any of the following disposals, namely—

(a) a sentence passed on conviction;
(b) a decision under section 209(1)(b) of this Act not to make a supervised release order;
(c) a decision under section 234A(2) of this Act not to make a non—harassment order:
(d) a probation order;
(e) a community service order;
(f) a decision to remit to the Principal Reporter made under section 49(1)(a) of this Act;
(g) an order deferring sentence;
(h) an admonition; or
(i) an absolute discharge.

(2) An appeal under subsection (1) above may be made—

(a) on a point of law;
(b) where it appears to the Lord Advocate, in relation to an appeal under—

(i) paragraph (a), (h) or (i) of that subsection, that the disposal was unduly lenient;
(ii) paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, that the decision not to make the order in question was inappropriate;
(iii) paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection, that the making of the order concerned was unduly lenient or was on unduly lenient terms;
(iv) under paragraph (f) of that subsection, that the decision to remit was inappropriate;


(v) under paragraph (g) of that subsection, that the deferment of sentence was inappropriate or was on unduly lenient conditions.".

(2) For subsection (4) of section 175 of the 1995 Act there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(4) The prosecutor in summary proceedings, in any class of case specified by order made by the Secretary of State, may, in accordance with subsection (4A) below, appeal to the High Court against any of the following disposals, namely—

(a) a sentence passed on conviction;
(b) a decision under section 209(1)(b) of this Act not to make a supervised release order;
(c) a decision under section 234A(2) of this Act not to make a non—harassment order;
(d) a probation order;
(e) a community service order;
(f) a decision to remit to the Principal Reporter made under section 49(1)(a) or (7)(b) of this Act;
(g) an order deferring sentence;
(h) an admonition; or
(i) an absolute discharge.

(4A) An appeal under subsection (4) above may be made—

(a) on a point of law;
(b) where it appears to the Lord Advocate, in relation to an appeal under—

(i) paragraph (a), (h) or (i) of that subsection, that the disposal was unduly lenient;
(ii) paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, that the decision not to make the order in question was inappropriate;
(iii) paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection, that the making of the order concerned was unduly lenient or was on unduly lenient terms;
(iv) under paragraph (0 of that subsection, that the decision to remit was inappropriate;
(v) under paragraph (g) of that subsection, that the deferment of sentence was inappropriate or was on unduly lenient conditions.".'—[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 to 36, 86 and 90.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 6 is intended to clarify the provisions concerning the Crown's right of appeal against sentences and other disposals. Since the power was first introduced in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, there have been various additions to the Lord Advocate's powers. The Bill will make further changes. The original structure of the provisions could helpfully be updated to accommodate the various proposals. New clause 6 and the consequential amendments achieve that by clarifying the legislative structure.
Some minor amendments are also made to the provisions dealing with appeals against a court's decision not to make a non-harassment or a supervised release order. We consider it preferable for the Crown to have to argue that the fact that the court did not make such an order in the specific circumstances of a case was inappropriate.

Mr. James Wallace: It would be helpful for the House to know on how many occasions

the Lord Advocate has used the powers that are available to him to appeal against sentences. Had the new clause appeared in the original Bill, the Government might have been obliged to give some indication of the financial implications, so can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the effect of these wider powers on the work load of the criminal appeal court?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The appeals unit considers that the new clause will provide a better basis for arguing an appeal before the court. We do not think that it will have a considerable effect on expenses.
There has been a relatively small number of appeals by the Lord Advocate and law officers. A few have been successful, but not all. The power has been used, however, and on the last occasion that I was asked, the number was less than 25, which is relatively few, but it may since have increased.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

EVIDENCE OF VULNERABLE PERSONS: SPECIAL PROVISIONS

'. For section 271 of the 1995 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
"Evidence of vulnerable persons: special provisions

271.—(1) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable person has been or could be cited to give evidence in a trial the court may appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of that person if—

(a) in solemn proceedings, at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;
(b) in summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn;
(c) in exceptional circumstances in either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial, application is made in that regard; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.


(2) Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.

(3) An accused shall not, except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.

(4) Subsections (2) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 272 of this Act shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed under that subsection as those subsections apply to an application under subsection (1) of that section and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.

(5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable person has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by that person by means of a live television link.

(6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable person has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of that person while that person is present to give evidence; but arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear as the evidence is given by the vulnerable person.

(7) The court may grant an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—



(a) the possible effect on the vulnerable person if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted;
(b) whether it is likely that the vulnerable person would be better able to give evidence if such an application were granted; and
(c) the views of the vulnerable person.

(8) In considering whether to grant an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

(a) the nature of the alleged offence;
(b) the nature of the evidence which the vulnerable person is likely to be called upon to give;
(c) the relationship, if any, between the person and the accused; and
(d) where the person is a child, his age and maturity.

(9) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.
(10) The sheriff court to which a case has been transferred under subsection (9) above shall be deemed to have granted an application under, as the case may be, subsection (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to the case.
(11) Where a court has or is deemed to have granted an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to a vulnerable person, and the vulnerable person gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the vulnerable person prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.
(12) In this section—

'child' means a person under the age of 16 years;
'court' means the High Court or the sheriff court;
'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure; and
'vulnerable person' means—

(a) any child; and
(b) any person of or over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Protection of mentally disordered witnesses—
'—After section 271 of the 1995 Act (evidence of children) there shall be inserted the following section:
"Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses

271A—(1) subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness could be or has been cited to give evidence in a trial the court may appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of the vulnerable witness if—

(a) in solemn proceedings at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;
(b) in summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn;
(c) in exceptional circumstances in either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial,

application is made to the court in that regard; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of at least five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.

(2) Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.
(3) An accused shall not except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.
(4) Subsections (2) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 272 of this Act shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.
(5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the vulnerable witness by means of a live television link.
(6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial the court may on application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of the vulnerable witness while the vulnerable witness is present to give evidence; but arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear as the evidence is given by the vulnerable witness.
(7) The court may grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

(a) the possible effect on the vulnerable witness if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted;
(b) whether it is likely that the vulnerable witness would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted; and
(c) the views of the vulnerable witness.

(8) In considering whether to grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

(a) the age and maturity and degree of disorder of the witness:
(b) the nature of the alleged offence;
(c) the nature of the evidence which the vulnerable witness is likely to be called on to give; and
(d) the relationship, if any, between the vulnerable witness and the accused.

(9) Where a Sheriff to whom an application has been made under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any Sheriff Court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a Sheriff Court in the same Sheriffdom.
(10) The Sheriff Court to which a case is transferred under subsection (9) above shall be deemed to have granted an application under, as the case may be, subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to the case.
(11) Where a court has or is deemed to have granted an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to a vulnerable witness and the vulnerable witness gives evidence that he recalls having identified prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the vulnerable witness prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.
(12) In this section—

'vulnerable witness' means a witness aged 16 years or over whom the court determines to be suffering from mental disorder as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984;


'court' means the High Court or the sheriff court; and
'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure".'.

New clause 10—Evidence of vulnerable witness: special provisions—
'After section 271 of the 1995 Act (evidence of children) there shall be inserted the following section:—
'Evidence of vulnerable witness: special provision—

'271A-(1) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness could be or has been cited to give evidence in a trial the court may appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of the vulnerable witness if—

(a) in solemn proceedings, at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;
(b) in summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn;
(c) in exceptional circumstances in either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial,

application is made to the court in that regard; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of at least five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.
(2) Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.
(3) An accused shall not, except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.
(4) Subsections (2) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 272 of this Act shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed under that subsection as those subsections apply to an application under subsection (1) of that section and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.
(5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the vulnerable witness by means of a live television link.
(6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of the vulnerable witness while the vulnerable witness is present to give evidence; but arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear as the evidence is given by the witness.
(7) The court may grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

(a) the possible effect on the witness if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted;
(b) whether it is likely that the witness would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted; and
(c) the views of the witness.

(8) In considering whether to grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

(a) the age and maturity and degree of disorder of the witness;
(b) the nature of the alleged offence;
(c) the nature of the evidence which the witness is likely to be called on to give; and
(d) the relationship, if any, between the witness and the accused.


(9) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.
(10) The sheriff court to which a case is transferred under subsection (9) above shall be deemed to have granted an application under, as the case may be, subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to the case.
(11) Where a court has or is deemed to have granted an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to a witness and the witness gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the witness prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such information.
(12) In this section—

'vulnerable witness' means a witness aged 16 years or over whom the court determines to be suffering from mental disorder as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
'court' means the High Court or the sheriff court; and
'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure.".'.

Government amendment No. 227.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: For the convenience of hon. Members I also propose to speak to new clauses 7 and 10, which are in similar terms to each other, as all the clauses are aimed at extending to a wider category of vulnerable witness the provisions available to children who give evidence in criminal proceedings. Where the two versions of the clause differ is that mine is restricted in its application to witnesses suffering from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, while those tabled by Opposition Members apply to a witness suffering from a mental illness or mental handicap, however caused or manifested. Otherwise, the clauses are identical in effect in that they apply to a wider category of vulnerable witness the existing provisions that enable vulnerable children to give evidence in criminal proceedings by a range of non-conventional means.

Dr. Godman: In how many courts in the land is it feasible to apply the conditions in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amended version of that section will enable adult witnesses who suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, as opposed to mental illness, to benefit from the alternative means of giving evidence in cases in which they might experience greater difficulty in giving evidence by conventional means. There is a difficulty in giving precise numbers, because of definitional problems in relation to mental illness. Perhaps we can return to that in a moment.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want first to deal with the points raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
At that time, I gave him a commitment, in response to an amendment, that my noble Friend the Lord Advocate would bring back a revised clause for consideration in


another place, as the need for consultation at that time meant that it was unlikely that we would be in a position to table a suitable amendment for consideration by hon. Members.
I am, however, delighted that the consultation process was completed in time to enable me to table the new clause for consideration today. Hon. Members will, I am sure, understand that the need to give due consideration to the responses received during the consultation process meant that we were not in a position to table the new clause as far in advance of today's debate as we would have wished. I should like to mention, however, that we have benefited from the responses to the consultation and from discussions that officials have had with, among others, representatives of Enable, in formulating the new clause.
Revised section 271 of the 1995 Act will apply to two categories of witnesses falling within the definition of vulnerable persons: a child, or a person over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to be suffering from a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning. That formulation will enable adults suffering from a learning disability, however caused, to benefit, in appropriate cases, from the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: According to the Scottish Association for Mental Health, most if not all mental health legislation gives equal protection to people who suffer from mental disorder, mental illness or learning disability. Why are the Government departing from that and setting a precedent in this case?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are discussing a rather different subject. We could be dealing with a serious murder case, and there are degrees of mental illness. Having considered the matter thoroughly, my noble Friend the Lord Advocate does not feel able to go as far as the Opposition would recommend. I shall explain the position, after which the hon. Gentleman may want to reply.
My noble Friend the Lord Advocate considered carefully representations made to him during the consultation process by bodies representing the mentally impaired that the provisions should also be extended, explicitly, to certain witnesses suffering from mental illness as opposed to mental handicap. That is the main area of difference between the reformulation of section 271 of the 1995 Act which I tabled as new clause 11, and the new sections 271 A of that Act tabled by Opposition Members as new clauses 7 and 10.
My noble Friend has concluded that it is appropriate to maintain the distinction between the two categories of witness. Witnesses who are mentally impaired through mental handicap from birth, or from some other and subsequent cause, such as injury, are inherently at risk and therefore in need of protection. The same cannot necessarily be said of those in the wide category of witnesses who may be suffering from a mental illness. Even a clinically well recognised mental illness will not necessarily render a witness inherently vulnerable for the purpose of giving evidence by conventional means. I am, however, prepared to discuss with the Lord Advocate tabling a further amendment that would go some way to meeting the concerns reflected in the Opposition's new clauses.
A range of provisions that will assist witnesses with particular difficulties is already in place. For example, if a witness, because of his mental condition, is unfit or unable to give evidence in a competent manner, the hearsay evidence provisions of section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 enable the court to consider evidence of an earlier statement made by him. Section 260 of that Act enables a witness who gives evidence in court to adopt as part of his evidence an earlier statement made by him. Such statements may be in writing or in the form of a video or audio recording.
Those provisions are still relatively new. While those who practise regularly in the criminal courts will be familiar with them, they may not be well known to others who have less frequent contact with the criminal process. Their potential to assist a witness who may be suffering from a mental illness to give evidence may not, therefore, be widely recognised. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the provisions of the 1995 Act will help a significant number of vulnerable witnesses, including those suffering from mental illness, to give evidence and so increase the number of cases in which proceedings may be brought.
In conclusion, I stress the importance that we attach to maintaining the well-established principle that the court in criminal proceedings should have access to the best available evidence. Where a competent witness is available to give oral evidence to the court in person, the personal attendance of that witness must be preferred to any other means by which evidence might be given. Only in exceptional circumstances should derogations from that general principle be permitted. We recognise that the inherent vulnerability of children, and of adults who suffer from a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, is sufficiently exceptional to justify such a derogation.
As I said, I am prepared to discuss with the Lord Advocate extending revised section 271 to offer protection to some witnesses who are mentally ill, but only to those who are suffering to such an extent that they are subject to orders under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In a moment.
Such an extension would recognise the fact that the person's predicament might warrant the protection afforded by the revised section 271 and would meet some of the difficulties in definition that would arise from simply extending the provision to the mentally ill while providing a definition that would assist the court. I hope that hon. Members will accept that there are good reasons for what some will regard as the restricted scope of my amendment and withdraw their new clauses. I hope that new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 227 will accordingly be welcomed by the House.

Dr. Godman: Has the Minister finished or is he giving way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way; he seems to have finished. However, we are having a debate and if the hon. Gentleman holds his fire, he will be able to speak later.

Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for his consideration of new clause 11 and for bringing it


to the Floor after speaking to Enable, the Scottish Association for Mental Health and other groups. However, I find it strange that he intends to reconsider the matter, because we pressed him strongly in Committee, where I asked him for a firm undertaking that he would meet those organisations before the Bill returned to the Floor. Now we find that he is thinking about further consultation, which shows the shakiness of the ground that he occupies. However, he has gone some way and I congratulate him on that.
The Minister knows that the amendments arose in large part from the "Front Line Scotland" programmes that showed that abuse of people with learning difficulties was going unpunished because the victims felt that they were unable to give evidence in a court of hearing. In Committee, I tabled an amendment with the assistance of Enable, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which would have provided protection for vulnerable witnesses who had to appear in the criminal courts.
The amendment would offer people with a mental disorder the possibility of protection similar to that currently given to child witnesses. I am well aware of the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has done over the years in Parliament on that issue, in which he has a deep interest. Such protection includes taking evidence in advance by means of video recordings; the giving of evidence by a live television link; and the use of screens to ensure that the witness does not have to see the accused person.
The Government have now accepted that witness protection should be given to witnesses with a learning disability, but we are concerned that they have not seen fit to extend it to people with mental health problems. We feel that that protection should be given to all witnesses who could be vulnerable because of mental disorder, including those with mental health problems.
Why should mentally ill people have vulnerable witness protection? First, it should be provided in the interests of justice. If a physically disabled person could not gain access to the criminal courts, attempts would be made to help him. If a person is inhibited by a mental disability from appearing in the courts, or can do so only at great risk to his health, the courts should make equal efforts to accommodate him.
Strong concern has been expressed that the stress of court proceedings could make a person with a mental illness an unreliable witness. A witness suffering from manic depression, for example, could appear well in court but become ill within a few hours, despite being on medication. Stress can lead a person to lose touch with reality or become so depressed that he cannot function or think properly. An environment away from the court, where that person would not feel stressed, would help him to give his evidence more accurately and calmly. Whereas it is thought that an appearance at court makes it more likely that most witnesses will tell the truth, the reverse could be true for some people living with mental illness.
Secondly, witness protection should be extended to those suffering from a mental disorder in the interests of law and order. If mentally ill people are the victims of crime and need help to give evidence, such help should be offered. If not, crimes will go unpunished and mentally ill people will be denied the protection of the criminal justice system.
Thirdly, such witness protection is in the interests of public health when giving evidence could cause a person to suffer a relapse. We are concerned that the Government do not appear to have given due consideration to that possibility. The Minister will realise that mental illness is a fluctuating condition and most people with a chronic mental health problem know that stress is a major cause of a relapse. That is true of the main and most distressing illnesses such as schizophrenia and manic depression. For that reason, associations such as the Scottish branches of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Manic Depression Fellowship support our new clause, which would provide protection for vulnerable witnesses.
The Minister will appreciate that it cannot be in anyone's interest when people who manage to live with a serious mental illness precipitately suffer a relapse, perhaps involving a costly hospital admission and great distress to that person and his family.
Lastly, witness protection should be provided not least because of the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It seems ironic that the Government, who only recently enacted legislation to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of disability, should now be seen to discriminate against people with mental illness. In theory, they, too, are protected by the Act. If the Government accept that some people with learning disabilities might need vulnerable witness protection, why can they not accept that some mentally ill people may also need it?
Not all those suffering from mental ill health will need to take advantage of the proposed protection. Many will be able to appear in court, while others will be too ill to do so. Such individuals may include those living in the community, perhaps in their own flat, after being discharged from a long-stay hospital. They may be subject to petty crime or harassment. The Scottish Association for Mental Health and other groups have provided numerous such examples, and have told us that the police often insist on no prosecution because of doubts about whether the victim could take part in court proceedings.
Another example could be a resident of a long-stay hospital or nursing home who alleges abuse by the staff. There have been recent reports of abuse in hospitals for the elderly, notably in Glasgow. A hospital patient may be legally able to give evidence if he or she is able to understand the nature of the oath and may need to speak the truth. But the prosecution may be unwilling to take the case further through fear of how the patient may appear in court. Taking evidence through a commissioner in familiar surroundings may be the answer, or a video link with the court could be appropriate.
The last sort of person is the victim of serous crime. The Scottish Association for Mental Health told us that one woman had come to it alleging that she had been raped. The alleged incident took place south of the border, where the Crown Prosecution Service took no further action owing to doubts as to whether the woman could cope with the ordeal of court proceedings. Some of the protection suggested might have enabled it to prosecute and could perhaps have prevented further assaults on vulnerable women.
4 pm
On the subject of safeguards against abuse, the Government seem concerned that, if "mental illness" were allowed as a ground for applying for vulnerable witness


protection, that would open the floodgates and allow anyone who might find court proceedings stressful to get a doctor's certificate exempting him from proceedings. However, new clause 7 has safeguards built into it. The court has the final decision as to whether the person has a mental disorder that justifies the use of vulnerable witness protection. The court can ask for further evidence before making a decision. It could call for psychiatric reports rather than simply relying on a report from a general practitioner. The court would be free to dismiss frivolous claims such as that of a person who is normally well claiming that his anxiety about a court appearance was a mental illness. The court would not be obliged to accept that excuse.
The Minister knows that Enable has petitioned him on another issue related to new clause 11—the questioning of people with mental disorders. In Committee, the Minister said that the proposal contained in an amendment that I tabled was desirable and he promised to ensure that an appropriate adult would be present during police interviews. But in meetings that Enable and the Law Society subsequently had with the Minister—for which they were grateful—the Government still expressed reservations about the statutory provision on the basis that it would set a precedent in Scots law and that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Government to be seen to be directing the police as they carried out their functions.
However, we understand—I would like the Minister to elaborate on this—that the Government want to introduce non-statutory guidance to the police on the appropriate adult scheme. As I mentioned to the Minister in Committee, there is one problem with that suggestion: non-statutory guidance for questioning such witnesses has been in place since 1990, with little effect. Even were it to be improved, there is no guarantee that it will be operated or that the police or caring agencies will find the appropriate resources to set up and manage such a scheme.
Will the Minister reconsider the issue? He knows the reservations that we expressed in Committee over the Quigley case, where the recommendations were in operation, but the police provisions failed. The Minister must take account of that issue, about which we are seriously concerned. We are grateful for some movement from the Government, but it is not enough for us to have confidence in the Government's new clause, so I press our case.

Dr. Godman: I compliment the Minister on the measure, but I do not think that it is extensive enough. It is fair to say that it represents an improvement in the continuing development in the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in our judicial proceedings.
I asked my earlier question because I am concerned about the extent of the provision of closed circuit television in our courts. The Minister knows that there is such a system in Greenock sheriff court; it is a modern installation that has been used on a number of occasions. The first occasion was characterised by the child witness telling the prosecuting counsel where to go and how to get there and walking out of the interview room, but there is no doubt that the system has been a success. There may be cases where people have to travel long distances in order to give evidence through a CCTV system.
Will the Minister tell me whether the promise he has just made would allow a person suffering from schizophrenia or manic depression to be given the sort of protection outlined in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995? Again, I tried to intervene make this point earlier. The Minister referred to an order which dealt with persons suffering from certain conditions. The Lord Advocate or the Minister—and possibly their officials, too—might be concerned about the ability of some individuals to fake the symptoms of schizophrenia or manic depression.
In a recent case, a man was sent to the state hospital, Carstairs, ostensibly suffering from schizophrenia. Later, when this malingerer was caught out, it was alleged that he had fooled several psychiatrists. I believe—the Minister will be able to confirm this—that the procurator fiscal involved had the man charged for that form of medical malingering. Are the Government concerned that people might try to fake such illnesses?
To be fair-minded, I admit that there are cases, such as the man at Carstairs, of persons involved in criminal proceedings faking schizophrenia. I was told by a psychiatrist of three cases in which individuals were able to fake, fairly cleverly, some of the symptoms of schizophrenia. All three had had psychedelic experiences induced by the use of LSD, so they had some experience of the sort of mental state suffered by a person suffering from schizophrenia. However, I assure the Minister that such cases are rare and that the literature does not demonstrate that such people are successful—inevitably, they are caught out by psychiatric examinations.
If the Minister has any worries in that respect, I should have thought that the individual's medical history would be a powerful form of assessment, as would examination by psychiatrists who are skilled in the relevant field. I therefore hope that his reluctance to extend his new clause is not prompted by the fear of people faking such illnesses. We are, of course, talking about witnesses and not those charged with offences. It would be perfectly in order to extend the new clause to allow individuals suffering from some form of schizophrenia or those bedevilled by manic depression to be given the same sort of protection that is now afforded to young children in our courts.
What the Scottish Association for Mental Health has to say in its brief is well worth the Minister's attention when he is considering whether to extend the new clause. At page 2, paragraph 5, the brief states:
It can surely be in nobody's interests that people who are managing to live with a major mental illness should be precipitated back into relapse, perhaps involving a costly hospital admission, and causing great distress to them, their families and friends. The Sheriffs Association, which represents all serving sheriffs in Scotland, supports this view, as does the Law Society of Scotland.
As has been mentioned, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides a measure of protection to persons suffering from mental illness.
The same brief states in the following paragraph:
Under the Disability Discrimination Act. It seems ironic that a Government which only last year published an Act outlawing discrimination on the grounds of disability, should now discriminate against people with mental illness, who are in theory protected by the Act.
Is there a discrepancy—I look forward to the Minister's answer—between the new clause and the relevant section of the Disability Discrimination Act? If there is, any anomaly should be eliminated in the interests of such people.
The brief continues:
If the Government accepts that some learning disabled people might need vulnerable witness protection why can it not accept that some mentally ill people may as well?
Has the Minister decided against extending the new clause on the ground that a case involving, for example, evidence given by someone suffering from schizophrenia or manic depression which leads to a conviction of the accused person might be appealed by the defendant's lawyers? I would not have thought that that would be the case. I cannot think of a case in Scotland or, indeed, south of the border in England and Wales where a conviction that involved the giving of evidence by a vulnerable witness using CCTV or evidence taken on commission has been appealed on the ground that the accused was unable to face one of the witnesses for the prosecution. While the measure being offered by the Minister today is to be welcomed, it is regrettable that it has not gone further in seeking to protect people who suffer from a mental illness.
I have already mentioned the fact that, in a few cases over the past 20 years, both here and in America, people have, for a while, been able to simulate the symptoms exhibited by genuine schizophrenics or manic depressives. However, such cases are extremely rare and should not deter the Government from extending this welcome measure.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: This issue should not be a partisan one that divides the House along party lines. It raises an important feature of the nature of criminal procedure in our courts and the extent to which we are willing to create circumstances in which any individual, whatever handicap he or she may be subject to, is able to contribute to the judicial process.
Like other hon. Members, I have received the brief from the Scottish Association for Mental Health, but I do not intend to refer to its terms in detail. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) read eloquently from the brief and the issues are clear and positive in the minds of those participating in this debate. The strength of the case made by the hon. Gentleman was if not overwhelming, at least of such a nature that the Minister should think carefully about whether he should take the matter away and give it further consideration.
The basis of the Government's opposition to the extension being proposed appears to rest in that rather hoary old statutory chestnut, the floodgates argument. In this particular case, though, as subsection (7) of the new clause makes clear,
The court may grant an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown".
That is to say, the court has to be satisfied in any particular case that it is legitimate to go ahead in the light of the procedures set out in the new clause; and the court must have regard to the criteria set out there.
4.15 pm
Furthermore, in subsection (8), the court "may take into account" a number of additional criteria.
It seems to me that the floodgates argument lies behind the Government's attitude—but there are plenty of dams in the way of the flood to prevent abuse of the proposals. The Government seem anxious, however, that the provision, if enacted, would be the subject of abuse. So

hedged about are the circumstances in which these procedures can be used, however, that there is no risk of any serious abuse whatever. That being so, why should those whose vulnerability may arise from a mental disorder be excluded from the personal advantages that the new clause seeks to create? The Minister would be well advised to give that serious consideration.
Section 271 of the 1995 Act stipulates that a person appointed as a commissioner
must be, and for a period of five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.
So qualification to be a commissioner under current law, restated in this legislation, is merely membership of either the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society of Scotland. If vulnerability conditions are to be extended so that more commissions may need to be held, the Government will be wise to think again about whether mere membership of one of those bodies is qualification enough.
I was once appointed a commissioner on behalf of the High Court to take evidence from a witness who was not expected to survive until the date of the trial. Indeed, that proved to be so. I remember that a difficult question arose about an objection taken to certain of the evidence being sought to be led. If, therefore, we are to extend the circumstances in which a commissioner may require to operate, it will be not just membership of these bodies but practical experience that will be important. So I suggest that the Minister consider qualifications by way of experience before extending the number of occasions when commissioners may be asked to sit in judgment.
I reiterate: this should not be a partisan matter. The speeches made thus far today have clearly shown the mood of the House. The Minister would do himself a lot of good—and would ultimately do the administration of justice a great deal of good—if he thought again about this point.

Mr. Canavan: I speak in support of new clause 7, which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I did not serve on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill, but I can well understand the desire to afford special protection in court proceedings to vulnerable persons, including taking evidence in advance on video recordings, giving evidence on live television, and the use of screens.
New clause 11 restricts the definition of "vulnerable person" to a child or
any person of or over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning",
whereas new clause 7 extends the definition to include vulnerable witnesses, which means
a witness aged 16 years or over whom the court determines to be suffering from mental disorder as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984".
That seems to be a tight definition. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) just said, it would not exactly open the floodgates, so I cannot see the Minister's reasoning in resisting the new clause.
There is wide support for the principle of new clause 7 throughout the country, particularly among professionals and voluntary organisations that specialise in caring for


people who suffer from mental illness. For example, a letter from Anne Wallace on behalf of Falkirk District Association for Mental Health says:
It is the view of FDAMH that at present some individuals with mental illness find it impossible to appear in court as witnesses because of the possible stress of the court appearance and of fear of ridicule or intimidation.
Those feelings are echoed by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which says in a letter:
We have experience of the distress caused to people who are mentally ill when faced with court proceedings. One case which came to us was of a person being harassed in her home by a group of local teenagers. The police wanted to prosecute, but the woman was unable to cope with the prospect of confronting the teenagers in court and so the abuse continued.
If such circumstances are allowed to prevail, justice will be denied to many people with mental illness, with the result that crimes will go unpunished and many people will be denied the protection of the criminal justice system. Alternatively, they may be persuaded to go, or even be pressurised into going, to court to give evidence and the whole experience may be such an ordeal that they risk having a further mental breakdown.
The Minister is a reasonable man and I am sure that he does not want those circumstances to develop or be allowed to continue. I hope that he will be persuaded to think again and ensure that the courts give adequate protection to all witnesses, including witnesses who may be vulnerable because of a mental disorder.
I think that I heard the Minister say earlier that he was willing to consider the matter further and possibly introduce an appropriate amendment in the House of Lords. Why on earth has he not introduced an appropriate amendment in this House? What is wrong with new clause 7, which seems to be technically good, with no drafting faults? Why cannot the Minister just accept new clause 7 and help to ensure that people who suffer from mental illness and are called as witnesses in court have a much fairer deal?

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I add my own brief comments on new clause 7, which I too believe should not divide the House? Will the Minister answer some questions about vulnerable child witnesses who do not necessarily have any mental disorder? He will recall that the matter was raised in Committee, and I remember the Secretary of State nodding in agreement with me earlier when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I pointed out that there have been occasions when someone has been accused of committing dreadful crimes against a very young child, and the child's evidence has not been called, on the ground that he or she is too young. It is obvious that some people might choose such young victims for the very reason that the children are too young for their evidence to be listened to seriously in court. The Minister may remember that we discussed that in Committee.
There should be ways of ensuring that a child who is capable of giving a truthful account of events and who is capable of accurate recall should not have his or her evidence disregarded on the ground that he or she cannot grasp abstract concepts such as telling the truth and understanding an oath.
I see nothing in new clause 11 in that regard. If the Minister plans to take the issue forward in the House of Lords, I should be glad to hear from him about that tonight. I hope that he has not simply forgotten about the matter, which caused concern in Committee. The Bill should not complete its passage without addressing the possibility that the evidence of very young children might be disregarded because the children are so young.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak to new clause 10, which is similar to new clause 7. Much of what I intended to say would echo what has already been said by other Opposition Members, so I shall not go over the same ground.
We support the principle of extending protection to adults with learning disabilities, for which the Government new clause provides. As has been pointed out, however, that still excludes people with mental illness. Opposition Members seek a provision to include such people.
I am unclear why the Government seem unable to accept that the mentally ill should be provided with that protection. I have listened to the Minister. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) echoed my impression that the floodgates argument might underlie the Government's attitude. Will the Minister tell us his specific concerns about extending the provision to include those who are mentally ill? I hope that he will accept that Opposition Members are genuinely puzzled about his refusal thus far to countenance that extension.
The concerns of various organisations have been rehearsed, and they are shared by Opposition Members. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), that victims are witnesses too. When we speak of extending protection for vulnerable witnesses, we generally mean victims, although in some cases we mean witnesses in the strict sense of the word.
Where necessary, we should extend all the protection we can, within the law, to people who are vulnerable. I do not understand the argument that those who are mentally ill do not come within the group classified as vulnerable. I beg the Minister to tell us clearly what the problem has been thus far.

Dr. Godman: I remind the hon. Lady that more and more mentally ill people are living in the community as a result of so-called community care policy. If they are more vulnerable as a consequence—as many obviously are—they are surely entitled to the protection that we traditionally afford to children.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I thank him for his timely intervention. An increasing number of such persons on the street means an increase in the likelihood of their appearing in court as vulnerable witnesses. As a consequence of the nature of the lives that many must lead, they increasingly appear in court as victims of crime or as witnesses to incidents.
We are discussing those with serious mental illnesses such as manic depression and schizophrenia, and I do not think that hon. Members would deny the serious effects of those illnesses on individuals and their ability to cope


with ordinary, day-to-day life. If their ability to cope with daily life is severely affected—as it clearly is—they will not be able to cope with the extra stress of appearing in court.
The fact is that many people who do not have mental disorders find formal court proceedings very stressful. I refer not only to High Court proceedings for murder but to all sorts of proceedings. Elderly people may feel stressed if compelled to give evidence in court. My mother had to give evidence in a summary case and she was quite worried about the prospect. She is in her 80s and does not suffer from any illness or disorder. If ordinary folk suffer such stress, the pressure on someone who suffers from mental illness must be even greater. As other hon. Members have said, I fear that cases simply will not go to court because people are not capable of dealing with the stress or because valuable witnesses to serious incidents cannot be considered reliable witnesses during court proceedings. That means that their evidence may be lost in serious cases.
These issues are important to the way in which our law operates. We are very proud of our system of justice in Scotland. It has its faults—as does every justice system in the world—but we are justly proud of the way that the system in Scotland has developed, the traditions that have grown up over the years and the way in which it has been able to change and adapt to circumstances.
I urge the Government to take this commendable new clause on board, as it is important to stress protection for vulnerable witnesses. I shall not repeat the list of those who support the measure because other hon. Members have referred to them already. I support the earlier comments about new clauses 7 and 10 and the in-built protections to prevent the floodgates from opening—if that is the reason for the Minister's concern.
The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 already allow certain concessions, but the new clause has in-built protection that would allow the court to make the final decision. I think that the court can make such a decision—it already has that experience to a certain extent—and it should be allowed to do so.

Dr. Godman: If new clause 10 or new clause 7 is successful, does the hon. Lady anticipate that a commissioner taking evidence on commission from someone suffering from schizophrenia or manic depression would be advised by a medical practitioner? I am thinking of someone suffering from schizophrenia, who had been released into the community and had not taken his or her medication when called for interview by the commission.

Ms Cunningham: That is an important issue. In cases under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, if there is any doubt about an individual's mental state, the court has the opportunity to acquire medical evidence from a psychiatrist. It may be easier or harder to get evidence at particular times of the day or week or in particular situations.
As I have said already, I am puzzled why the Minister has thus far set his face against an extension to include those who are mentally ill. The majority of people would assume that those who are mentally ill would be

considered vulnerable under anybody's classification and for any reason. I ask the Minister to consider the issue seriously.

Mr. McAllion: I also support new clause 7, spoken to so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and oppose the new clause moved by the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised a small but important point with the Minister, who promised to return to it, but he did not. It relates to the facilities necessary to implement the new clauses, and their availability in courts around Scotland. The Minister said that new clause 11 extended the existing provisions for evidence being given by children to a new category of vulnerable persons. By definition, that must mean that there will be increased demand for those facilities.
New clauses 11 and 7 would require a range of technical equipment to be available in Scottish courts. For example, subsection (2) of new clause 11 says:
Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.
The new clause goes on to say that the accused shall not be present during the proceedings,
but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.
He will therefore have to be in another room, perhaps in the same building, and have access to what is going on, perhaps by some remote audio-visual means.
The new clause goes on to say that those covered by the provisions can give evidence
by means of a live television link.
It also says that screens will have to be provided so that the witness does not have to be in court at the same time as the accused, but that the accused must have some means of seeing and hearing the evidence.
A range of technical facilities must be made available. I discovered only this afternoon that Glasgow High Court does not have such facilities. Any trial there involving anyone who came under the new clause would have to go to Glasgow sheriff court, where the facilities are available. That would result in delays, because Glasgow sheriff court has a long backlog of outstanding cases. I do not know about Dundee High Court—I suppose that it meets in Dundee sheriff court, and that those facilities are available. When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow how many courts in Scotland had such facilities, the Minister could not give a coherent or sensible reply—not unusual for him.

Dr. Godman: I can confirm that sheriff court No. 5 in Glasgow has CCTV. I have seen it in operation. My hon. Friend mentioned screens, which are a crude means of separating the witness from the accused in the dock. I would like the practice to be done away with in favour of CCTV in all courts, or evidence taken on commission.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I agree with him. I am not defending the arrangements set down in the new clauses: I am simply saying that the facilities that would allow them to be put into practice are not universally available in the courts of Scotland.


I hesitate to make any public expenditure commitments, but the new clauses may involve such commitments. Perhaps the House could turn its attention to that.

Mrs. Fyfe: When I was a witness in Glasgow sheriff court recently, I noticed that witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence were still likely to encounter each other under the system. That causes great concern. Even with the provision of screens and remote television, considerable difficulty could be caused if there was any possibility of the witnesses seeing each other in court buildings.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend has made a relevant point, to which I hope the Minister will reply when he winds up. Many years ago, I was a witness at Dundee sheriff court when my video recorder was stolen. At that time, witnesses for the prosecution and the defence, and the accused, were all kept in the same room to wait for the trial. The whole purpose of new clause 11 would be defeated if, before a trial had even started, vulnerable witnesses were expected to share accommodation with those accused of committing—in some cases—serious offences against them. I hope that the Minister will ensure that witnesses covered by the new clause will not come into any contact with those accused of offending against them.
The nub of the argument between Opposition and Government centres on the definition of the vulnerable witnesses who will be included in the new category. Both sides agree that a child should be defined as someone under 16; it is the Minister's new legal definition in new clause 11 that is at the heart of the debate. According to the new clause, a "vulnerable person" means
any person of or over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
As far as I know, that is a new definition. I have not seen it before.
I understand that the Minister consulted on what the definition should be—or, rather, that the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Minister, carried out a quick consultation process between Committee and Report. On 20 December, in the run-up to Christmas, the Minister wrote to Committee members, kindly making available to us the consultation paper that the Lord Advocate had sent out. At that time, the Minister was referring to the "learning disabled". The Lord Advocate's consultation document argued against the definition suggested by my hon. Friends, referring to
a suitable definition of 'learning disabled'",
and stating:
Section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 … is not considered to form a suitable basis for such a definition because it describes an extreme and narrow range of mental disorders and, arguably, does not include people exhibiting the range of learning difficulties which would render witnesses vulnerable when giving evidence.
At the consultation stage, the Lord Advocate and the Government said that they did not want to adopt the definition in section 1 of the 1984 Act because it was too narrow, and would not cover enough witnesses who might be vulnerable in court proceedings. They wanted a wider definition, bringing in more people who might be

vulnerable in such circumstances. The consultation paper itself suggested a definition that might be used: a witness suffering from learning disability would be
suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
Between consultation and Report, however, the Minister has changed the suggested definition. Out goes the phrase
suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind".
The only phrase that is included in the new clause is
significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
The Minister must explain tonight why, between the consultation stage and his return to the House, he has dropped the phrase
suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind".

Dr. Godman: Subsection (12)(b) refers to "social functioning". Could it not be argued that a person suffering from, say, paranoid schizophrenia was suffering from a "significant impairment" of social functioning?

Mr. McAllion: I would have thought so. Presumably, during the consultation period the Minister had a great deal of time in which to circulate the document to interested groups. Can he tell us how many people responded, whether any consultant psychiatrists or organisations representing them contacted the Government, and whether, if so, they have a view about the Minister's definition? I would have thought that that definition might or might not include someone suffering from schizophrenia, but that is a matter for a consultant psychiatrist rather than a court to decide. The Minister must tell us exactly what the position is.
4.45 pm
A number of hon. Members have asked whether the Government fear that the floodgates may open, and that too many people will seek protection under the new clauses. Is that why they will not accept section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 as a definition? The Minister cannot say that that is the case, however, for his own consultation document makes it clear that he wants a broader definition. He must justify the phrase that he is introducing to Scottish law for the first time, and explain who will decide what constitutes
significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
Will it be the court, or a consultant psychiatrist?

Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that witnesses who have been intimidated or threatened by the accused, or people connected with the accused, could describe themselves as not functioning very well socially? Nothing in the new clauses relates to people who have been threatened or intimidated during trials, or whom others have attempted to bribe.

Mr. McAllion: Not only do I agree; when my hon. Friend asked whether a witness who had been threatened could be described as suffering from impairment of social


functioning, the Minister nodded. It now appears that threatened witnesses could qualify under the new clause, which widens the definition.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.

Mr. McAllion: Now the Minister says, "No," from a sedentary position. Just a few minutes ago, he was saying, "Yes."

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned the organisations that were consulted. In fact, the Lord Advocate consulted the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, but failed to consult Scottish members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend highlights our problem in trying to decide between the two new clauses that have been tabled by the Government and by Opposition Members. The Minister is pushing ahead at breakneck speed. There has not been proper consultation: those who know best how witnesses should be categorised and defined in law have not been allowed their say in the law-making process.
The suspicion must arise that what the Government are about tonight is political posturing—that they are trying to talk tough on law and order before a general election, and are not even interested in trying to improve the law or introduce proper legal changes that would protect people in real-life circumstances outside the House. That reflects very badly on the Minister and the Government. The Minister's brother is right to say that he has had more than enough of the Tory Government over the past 17 years, and his younger brother is even more right to campaign for a Scottish Parliament, because if we had one, we would not be wasting our time here tonight.
We already have a legal definition of witnesses who may be covered by the new clause: the definition given in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. A consultant psychiatrist who works as a forensic psychiatrist, dealing with offenders, has told me that that is a generic term that is used in law. It defines two separate categories of people—those who suffer from mental illness, and those who suffer from a mental handicap.
Mental handicap means severe mental impairment. The Minister said that those people would be covered by new clause 11, but that those who suffer from a mental illness would not necessarily come within the new definition. As many hon. Members have said, that excludes from the protection of the clause a range of people who suffer from schizophrenia, manic depressive illnesses and many other illnesses.
All hon. Members who have spoken have made the point that the Minister must explain why people who suffer from mental illness are not being afforded the protection of the new clause. In the consultation paper that he distributed around Scotland, he said that the definition of section 1 of the 1984 Act, which included people with mental illness, was not wide enough, and that not enough people would be caught within it. Now he says that it is too wide. He must explain to us what has happened to change his mind.
The Minister tried to get himself off the hook by referring to section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. He suggested that that part of the

Act could be used to cover people who suffer from mental illness. Section 259 deals with hearsay evidence, and lists a range of people who need not give evidence for a variety of reasons. The first category is people who are dead—which I suppose is a reasonable ground for not giving evidence in court; no one would argue with that. People who are no longer in the United Kingdom are allowed to give hearsay evidence. People who have been identified as potential witnesses but who cannot be found are another good category. People who believe that, if they give evidence, they may incriminate themselves are also allowed to give hearsay evidence.
If the Minister is prepared to include people suffering from a mental illness within the definition of hearsay evidence, why is he not prepared to include them within the definition in the Bill? The Government's position is inconsistent.

Dr. Godman: In my comments, I was not criticising the responses of people who had been consulted. They were asked three questions, all of which referred to witnesses who may be categorised as learning disabled. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that they were not given an opportunity to discuss other vulnerable witnesses.

Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is spot on. No Opposition Member would criticise properly qualified people for commenting on those issues. Our criticism is directly solely at Ministers, who are not listening to the voice of reason expressed inside and outside the House. Instead, they are pushing ahead with proposals that cannot be justified.
I received a letter from my constituent, Dr. Joe Morrow, who has spent some time working with people suffering from mental illness. He is concerned that the new clause does not include witnesses who are vulnerable as a result of mental illness. He tells me that he has direct experience of the extreme distress that is caused to people who are or have been mentally ill when they are faced with court proceedings.
Dr. Morrow is concerned about the people in residential care or in hospital, who may be abused and need protection to ensure that they are not intimidated in court by their carers or by those with power over them. The Minister should remember that people who suffer from mental illness need protection: they are often in an extremely weak position, whereas those who may have abused them are extremely powerful and strong.
Dr. Morrow says that, in most mental health legislation, the definition of mental disorder in section 1 of the 1984 Act is adequate. He asked me to make his plea—a plea that has come from hon. Members across the Committee—that the Minister's suggestion is not good enough. If, like his brother, he is honest and decent, he should listen to the Opposition.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond to the debate. This is one of the most important discussions that we will have today, so it is vital that we get it right.
The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the issue of separating witnesses from the accused. Where accommodation permits, every effort is made to keep


witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence separate. Improvements are constantly being introduced, and every effort is made to keep vulnerable witnesses separate from other witnesses.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about the availability of equipment for giving evidence. The need for additional facilities will be assessed in the light of demand. Commissions may be taken. In any suitable accommodation, screens are available for use in every court. Closed circuit television is available in every sheriffdom, and the need for further provision is kept constantly under review.
The hon. Member for Maryhill asked about children who may be too young to give evidence. That is a complex issue. There is no minimum age below which a child cannot give evidence: the issue is whether the child can competently give evidence. Any change would require wide consultation. I shall discuss that matter further with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that the criteria in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provide sufficient safeguards against a floodgate of applications. There would be an intolerable burden on the courts if we were to leave it to them to apply those criteria to every case in which a witness was alleged to be vulnerable. Some means of preliminary assessment is essential.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which focuses on discrimination in employment. It is not concerned with the rules of evidence, to which quite different considerations apply.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister dealt with my point by saying that there would be an intolerable burden on the court. If we have regard to the terms of the statute as proposed, an application can be granted only on cause shown, which means that each application must come to the court. There is no question of applications being granted on the nod or automatically. Every application will have to be heard by the court, even under the Government's proposal. So if that is his counter to the floodgates argument, I suggest that it may not be a very strong one.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said, some preliminary assessment will have to be made. May I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman—who has been an advocate depute, and has been engaged in prosecutions—what the prosecution's difficulty is. Successive Lords Advocate have been concerned that extended availability of vulnerable witness provisions could have a significant operational impact on the prosecution services, given the pressures that would be brought to bear on prosecutors by witnesses who sought to establish their vulnerability, so as to avoid having to give evidence to the court.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) gave the example of an outrage, and stressed the importance of bringing the culprits to justice. I agree with him. We must balance the importance of seeing that justice is done with the need to ensure that unfairness is not meted out to vulnerable witnesses. We must get the right balance.
If a witness with schizophrenia were unable to give evidence, the hearsay provisions in the 1995 Act might be available. We expect that evidence of incapacity would require to be led; otherwise, there would be concerns that such witnesses would not be competent.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) complained that we have tabled too many amendments. Some of our amendments are in response to legitimate points made by him, and 100 amendments were tabled by the Opposition. I stress that we have done our best to respond to the serious points made.
The hon. Gentleman said that a person with a mental health problem should be assisted by being allowed to give evidence by non-conventional means. I accept that stress can occur through the use of technology, but the hearsay evidence provisions should help many mentally ill persons.
I also accept the case for extending the child witness provisions to all vulnerable witnesses, but such an extension would be a radical departure from the long-standing requirement that witnesses must give oral testimony. We are gradually departing from that requirement, first for children and now for mentally handicapped people. We would need to take great care if we were to go further at this time, because such a step would be inappropriate without the utmost thought.
I am prepared to discuss the case for doing that for the mentally ill who are subject to hospital or other orders that have been made under the Mental Health Act (Scotland) Act 1984, because for that category of people the degree of mental illness is sufficient to have required an order. Of course that is a substantial point.
As the hon. Member for Dumbarton said, mental illness can fluctuate. Persons who suffer from manic depression can be perfectly normal for much of the time until the illness hits them.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing technically wrong with new clause 7? Why is it unacceptable?

5 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a matter of balance and judgment, but mental illness can easily fluctuate. Should a witness to a fatal shooting be excluded because he is not sufficiently mentally ill to be subject to an order? To exclude such a witness could be contrary to the interests of justice.

Mr. Canavan: We are not talking about excluding witnesses, but about giving them the opportunity to present their evidence in a manner that takes their vulnerability into account.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate that, but we think that the "best evidence" rule should necessarily apply. I made it clear that I am prepared to discuss with the Lord Advocate the extension of revised section 271 to some mentally ill witnesses who are subject to orders under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton raised the issue that arises from the Quickly case and the new clause that was considered in Committee, when I undertook to discuss with Enable how we might secure the best treatment for


mentally disordered persons who were interviewed by the police. I met Enable in December, and wrote to members of the Committee on 10 January. As I explained in my letter, we are not persuaded that the statutory code is the best way forward. There might be some confusion between that code and the common law test that governs the admissibility of evidence.
I also explained that the Lord Advocate has said that he would issue instructions to chief constables setting out the circumstances in which the police will have to interview mentally disordered suspects in the presence of an appropriate adult. We shall also issue non-statutory guidance on this matter to chief constables and social work departments. I hope that that will meet our shared objective, which is that proper treatment should be given to the mentally disordered. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will not press the matter.

Mr. McFall: We are not persuaded by the Minister. He spoke about balance and judgment, but above all this is about justice. Under the new clause, people with learning disabilities who have to appear as witnesses will be protected, but that does not apply to people with mental illnesses. Such protection should be available to both categories of people.
The measure would apply to people with inborn learning disabilities but not to adults who would have some difficulty in attending court because they suffer from brain damage, head injuries, dementia or a severe illness. Voluntary organisations have persuaded us of the merits of our proposal, and we shall press new clause 7 to a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We are in some difficulty, because there is a debate in progress on new clause 11. It is the lead new clause, and the one that I must put to the House. If it is accepted, new clause 7 will fall.

Mr. McFall: Why?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Because it is incompatible with new clause 11.

Mr. McFall: In that case, we shall vote against new clause 11.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided:Ayes 269, Noes 228.

Division No. 42]
[5.4 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bates, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Biffen, John


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)


Atkinson. Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Sir Rhodes


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brazier, Julian





Bright, Sir Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Peter
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Higgins, Sir Terence


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Cash, William
Hordem, Sir Peter


Channon, Paul
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clappison, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Hurd, Douglas


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Cope, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Jopling, Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Ian


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lilley, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fowler, Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Molyneaux, Sir James


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)






Norris, Steve
Stanley, Sir John


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Steen, Anthony


Page, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Paice, James
Stem, Michael


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Stewart, Allan


Patten, John
Streeter, Gary


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Sweeney, Walter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rifkind, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Tracey, Richard


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, William


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Sir Roger
Wheeler, Sir John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Sir George


Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Bowen Wells.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ainger, Nick
Canavan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joseph
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin-Walker, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Corston, Ms Jean


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cox, Tom


Benn, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tarn


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Callaghan, Jim
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Denham, John





Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Ms Angela
MacShane, Denis


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Ennis, Jeff
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mandelson, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Meacher, Michael


Galloway, George
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Garrett, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Graham, Thomas
Morgan, Rhodri


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Hain, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Oakes, Gordon


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Orme, Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Rogers, Allan


Jamieson, David
Rooker, Jeff


Janner, Greville
Rooney, Terry


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Sheldon, Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shore, Peter


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Short, Clare


Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Keen, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C&S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Khabra, Piara S
Snape, Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Spellar, John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Litherland, Robert
Steel, Sir David


Livingstone, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Stevenson, George


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stott, Roger


Loyden, Eddie
Straw, Jack


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McAllion, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)






Thurnham, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy
 Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Trickett, Jon
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony


Walker, Sir Harold
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wallace, James



Walley, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Watson, Mike
Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice.
I have just discovered that on Friday, while I was here, along with many other hon. Members, trying to do something about cold weather payments and the wind chill factor, a Minister visited my constituency, but did not have the courtesy to inform me that she was going there. Her visit was televised in my constituency and she attended at least three functions there. Unfortunately, I am not able to raise the matter with the person in this House, because she lost her seat at the last election. I should be grateful, therefore, for clarification from you on how I can make representations to the Baroness—the former right hon. Member for Wallasey—who visited my constituency on Friday without informing me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has made it clear that all Ministers should inform hon. Members when they visit their constituencies and that all hon. Members should also have the courtesy to do the same if they visit another constituency. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will read Hansard tomorrow.

New clause 8

RELEASE LICENCES

'4.—(1) This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer and who are not released on:

(a) life licence; or
(b) supervised release order; or
(c) compassionate grounds.

(2) A prisoner to whom this section applies shall be released on licence which shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed.
(3) A person released on licence under subsection (2) above shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in that licence by the Secretary of State.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below to vary or cancel any condition, a licence granted under this section shall include a condition requiring that the person subject to it—

(a) shall be under the supervision of a relevant officer of such local authority, or of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area, as may be specified in the licence; and
(b) shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.


(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time under subsection (3) above insert, vary or cancel a condition in a licence granted under this section, but no licence condition shall be included on release or subsequently inserted, varied or cancelled except after consulting the Parole Board.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Parole Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.'.—[Mr.McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have tabled the new clause because we want to enhance public safety. The Government's proposals do not do so, but our provisions will strengthen that aspect of the Bill. The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 provides for non-parole licences, under which any prisoner sentenced to more than four years but not granted parole can be released on licence until the sentence expiry date. The arrangements in that Act enhanced public safety as well as rehabilitation.
The Bill alters those arrangements, as only life parolees and those made subject to a supervised release order by the sentencing court will now be under direct supervision. The sheriff or judge must say at the time of trial that the long-term prisoner will be subject to a supervised release order. All other long-term prisoners will have no supervision, but will be liable to recall following a further offence.
We are surprised that the Government are diminishing the public safety aspect, as well as diminishing the potential to help people to be rehabilitated back into the community. After implementation of the 1993 Act, the new parole licences came into effect in May 1995, so there has been no time to evaluate them. The Minister of State, who is dealing with this Bill tonight, put through those measures in the 1993 legislation, with the support of the Opposition.
In our opinion, public safety will be increased if all long-term prisoners are supervised until their sentence expires. Longer-term prisoners include those who have committed very serious offences and could constitute a further risk. Why will the Government allow those individuals to be released into the community again—or allow the possibility of their release—without that supervision? Surely the Government are putting public order at risk—a risk that they should not take.
The new clause covers those sentenced for the offences of dishonesty and of theft by housebreaking, and especially repeat, serious and violent offenders—one category that has been increasing. The professional criminal and thief would, therefore, be brought into mandatory supervision on release, giving the public that protection. That comfort must be available. It is the Government's duty to provide it and, through the new clause, we are pressing them to take heed of it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that the public are best protected by targeting supervision on those identified as posing a risk, which is the most effective way of deploying resources.
The public rightly expect to be protected and rightly expect those charged with the protection to focus on offenders who may endanger them. Attempting to


supervise everyone regardless of risk or need, as the new clause sets out to do, would deflect attention away from those offenders who pose a threat. That is not the best way to protect the public. Supervision can achieve its objective only if it is focused and targeted. Near misses are not good enough.
The Bill will allow the sentencing court to identify offenders whom it considers may pose a risk to the public on release and impose a supervised release order on them. We have also provided the Crown with a right of appeal in those cases where it thinks a supervised police order should have been made but was not.

Dr. Godman: Is the Minister's position on this important issue supported by members of the parole boards, or do they have serious reservations?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what each member would say, but I believe that targeting supervision would be regarded as a common-sense measure, and having an untargeted, unfocused approach would not meet the requirements.
We are not persuaded that the approach proposed in the new clause would be effective, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.

Mr. McAllion: I am disturbed by the Minister's remarks and the cavalier fashion in which he dismissed the new clause. For example, he said—I do not think that anyone will disagree with this statement, anyway—that we have to target such resources as we have in the probation service and local authority social work departments on those offenders who pose the greatest risk to people in the community. He then dismissed the new clause, saying that it would cover everyone. I direct his attention to the first sentence of the new clause, which states:
This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer".
Some years ago—in 1994, I think—in the White Paper that the Minister issued, as the Minister with responsibility for law and order in Scotland, he pointed out that, in courts, a distinction is made between offenders who are dealt with under the summary procedure, which is usually regarded as involving less serious crimes, and offenders dealt with under the solemn procedure, which involves very serious crimes indeed.
Under the solemn procedure, prisoners can get sentences of three, four or five years, so, by the Government's definition, all those offenders who are sentenced to four years or more are guilty of extremely serious offences. The Minister may think that those who commit serious offences are not a threat to society, but I think that most people in Scotland would disagree.
Supervision on release was covered in the White Paper, and there the Minister struck a very different note from the one that he struck a few moments ago. He said:
Protecting the public did not end with clarity in sentencing",
and I agree with him. It is not enough to play the game played by the Secretary of State, who poses as a tough guy who will deal with the criminals by making sure that

they spend more time in gaol. We must go further than that to protect the public in Scotland from the serious criminals who would be covered by the new clause.
5.30 pm
In the White Paper, the Minister said:
The public need to be reassured that the Government is doing all it can to prevent further offending.
If the Minister wanted to do all he could to prevent further offending and to protect the public, he could begin by reading the new clause, which deals with those matters, but he took a different line a few minutes ago.
In the White Paper, the Minister also said:
To this end we are making early release from custody contingent not only on good conduct in prison, but also on participation while in custody in appropriate strategies to address and change offending behaviour.
Nobody would be too concerned about that remark. He continued:
The responses to the Government's consultation exercise strongly supported the principle of release on conditions intended to enhance public protection.
The Minister said that the response to the consultations was a demand for release on condition, to ensure that offenders who came out of the gates were properly monitored and looked after, and that probation officers and social workers were available to deal with them during the period in which they were still in the community serving the part of their sentence that had not been served in gaol; but now he shrugs off the idea with a few casual remarks. The new clause would cover just about everything to which he referred.
Does the Minister not know that the vast majority of those in Scotland's prisons are serving sentences of less than four years and that only the most serious offenders are serving sentences of four years or more? He is telling us that it is all right for serious offenders to be allowed back into the community without supervision. Perhaps he is concerned that it would might cost money to look after them properly and to protect the public, but that is not what he or his colleagues will say when they go back to Scotland to fight the general election; then they will say that law and order is a priority and that the Government spare no expense to maintain it and to ensure that people throughout Scotland are safe in their communities. The Government have the nerve to dismiss a new clause that would do precisely that.
Only when a serious offender reoffends will the Government do anything about it. They have shown themselves to be weak, not strong, on law and order. Unless the Minister changes his tune, everyone back in Scotland—not least his family—will look at him and say, "Failed again, Minister. You've got it wrong once again."

Mr. Ian Davidson: One of the Government's main roles should be the protection of the public. I am not convinced that the Government are taking the new clause sufficiently seriously from that perspective. I can understand why the Government want to economise on the supervision of prisoners once they have been released, but they should take much more seriously the need to ensure that people released in such circumstances are provided with support, which would result in fewer of them reoffending and enhance public safety.
We would support the system proposed by the Government, with some targeting, but proposed subsection (4)(b) specifically says that the person released
shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.
That would obviously allow the supervising officer an enormous degree of discretion. It would ensure, for example, that people were seen to be taking steps to address their offending behaviour and perhaps, with the help of the supervising officer, to find employment or obtain further educational qualifications that would make them more employable and therefore less likely to offend.
All the evidence shows that those who are most likely to reoffend are those on the very bottom of the employment ladder. The amount of supervision and assistance that can be provided by a local authority officer, to encourage someone to seek employment, careers advice, education or training, is quite considerable. People who are released from prison and who are not immediately in danger of reoffending might drift back into criminal behaviour simply because they are alone and lack supervision.
The Government should take more seriously the need to safeguard the public, and should not ignore our constructive proposals.

Dr. Godman: I support the new clause. I am pleased that my hon. Friends want the parole board to have an important function in such cases. To my mind, the Minister and his officials have in recent times sought to reduce the important role played by the parole board in dealing with people released into the community. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important for the parole board to play a central part, and it is perhaps even more important for the public to be protected.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I stated earlier, we believe that supervision is most effective when focused. The courts are required to focus supervised release orders on precisely the category referred to: those who are convicted of rape and other violent offences.
Local authorities cannot supervise all released offenders to the level needed to ensure public safety. The task cannot successfully be spread across all offenders. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have adapted our proposals on supervision. Supervision, through supervised release orders, will be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders, and at the discretion of the court in other cases.
For those not subject to supervision, the provisions of clauses 33 and 34 provide an incentive to good behaviour on release. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) mentioned the potential to help. That is not diminished by the Bill. The national standards for the supervision of released prisoners provide that all persons released from custody can, within 12 months of their release, seek support and assistance from the local authority.
We believe that the provisions in the new clause would be undiscriminating, and therefore wasteful of resources, and that the courts are well able to recognise those offenders who represent the greatest risk to the public.

Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the White Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I had finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. John McFall.

Mr. McFall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister says that he cannot spread the provisions because it would be too expensive, but that supervision would be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders. He should understand that we are saying that those long-term prisoners who have committed serious offences should be subject to supervision. If, as I believe, he is saying otherwise, he is showing disregard for public safety. The Opposition want those individuals to be supervised.
It is no use for the Minister to say that the provision cannot be mandatory and cannot apply across the board. If it was good enough for the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the Minister and approved by the previous Secretaries of State—the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—why is it not good enough for the Minister and the Secretary of State today? Will the Minister maintain the provisions of the 1993 Act?
The 1993 Act was implemented after the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, when Secretary of State for Scotland, established Lord Kincraig's committee to consider parole and other issues. It took three years, if I remember correctly, to report back to the Government, but its recommendations were accepted by all parties. I was leading for Labour in the Committee that considered the Bill when the Minister asked us to accept them. He said that all long-term prisoners needed supervision. We took him at his word; why is he breaking it now?

Mr. McAllion: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister, who rather uncharitably refused to give way to me earlier.
In their latest figures, which cover 1994, even the Government accept that 83 per cent. of prisoners in Scotland serve sentences of less than six months. The number of people who will be affected by new clause 8 is small. It is beyond comprehension why the Government should resist the idea of supervision of serious offenders when they are released back into the community. The Minister mentioned some of the cases that will get automatic supervision; should he not also mention the cases that will not be covered by his provision but would be covered by ours?

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes a good point: 83 per cent. of offenders are in prison for less than six


months, and there is no supervision for them when they get out. Why should that principle apply to those who serve long sentences and to violent or serious offenders?
The Minister begs the question when he says that it is up to the court. Can he imagine a sheriff—or, more likely, a High Court judge—giving a 10-year sentence and saying, "Well, my boy, lest I forget, you should be subject to a supervisory release order when you come out"? There is every chance that judges will not utter those words, which means that such people will be a danger to the community when they come out. The Secretary of State smirks at that, but the 1993 legislation was introduced by his Government and made those very points. Why is he introducing this Bill against the wishes of his hon. Friends, the Kincraig committee and others? It must be recorded that the Bill is being introduced by the Secretary of State at a whim. He consulted no one.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am surprised, after all this time, that the hon. Gentleman has not got the basic substance of the Bill into his mind: the point is that people should spend longer in prison as a result of their sentences and should not be out in the community under supervision. We believe that they should be in prison. The provisions for supervision after they have served the sentence of the court are an additional protection. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that.

Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman is being patronising. We are talking about long-term prisoners who are released under provisions made by the Government. The Opposition believe that, when the Government decide to release such prisoners, they have a duty to the public to ensure supervision. I hope that that gets through to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a bit much for the Secretary of State to argue that he is interested in increasing sentences, and that we are not, when it was Labour who demanded in Committee that the sentence available to judges for the third convictions of drug traffickers aged over 21 should be increased from seven to 10 years? The Government defeated that proposal in Committee. We are interested in increasing sentences for such people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the Government's refusal to accept the new clause was let slip by the Secretary of State when he said that local authorities could not supervise to the level required? Does that not show that it is a question of finance and nothing else?

Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I remind the House that it was the Opposition who brought up the cases of Gavin McGuire and John Cronin, who were released from prison. We want adequate supervision for such people. They were released under provisions introduced by the Government. We want long-term supervision, not the blemishes on the criminal justice system that the Government have allowed. That is why we have tabled new clause 8. We want increased public safety.

Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the Government's defence of their refusal to accept new

clause 8 is based on the fact that violent or sexual criminals have been dealt with elsewhere? However, crimes such as burglary will not be treated seriously enough by the courts; supervision after release will not be mandatory. The Government are releasing burglars into the community without the requirement for supervision. On top of all their other charters, we now have the burglars charter. Burglars are to be released without supervision, which will ensure that the public are put even further at risk.

Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important point and the Minister could comment on the issue of people convicted of burglary.
It appears that the Government are not much concerned about people who are not only social nuisances in their communities but a danger to them. We want to take back to our communities the message that the Government take the issue seriously and will ensure supervision for such people when they are released from prison. The Government's intransigence blows a hole in their law and order credentials. The Secretary of State tells us that the Tories are interested in law and order, yet they have allowed crime to rip over the past 18 years in Scotland. New clause 8 would ensure that, when such people are let out of prison into the community, the message goes out from the House that the Government take the issue seriously. The Government have fallen down in their duty. That is why we press new clause 8 so vigorously.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly.
We have, of course, adapted our proposals since the publication of the White Paper. There will be control through a supervised release order where the courts determine that the offender will be a risk. In cases where the courts have not identified the offender as a risk, clause 34 will be a significant disincentive to reoffending. It provides that, if someone reoffends during a fixed period after his release, he will be liable to a heavier penalty for the new offence.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said that the Opposition wanted to increase the minimum sentence for a third conviction for drug trafficking to 10 years for adult traffickers, but they also suggested reducing it to five years for those under 21. We believe that that would have weakened law and order.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister tried to calm our feelings by referring us to clause 34, which provides that people released under licence but without supervision who reoffend will be subject to stiffer sentences. He is making the tragic mistake that legislators have made since the 19th century: he believes that tougher and tougher sentences will reduce crime. Most criminals do not believe that they are going to be caught. The sentence that might result from being caught does not enter their considerations. They have to be looked after in the community. The Secretary of State is wrong if he thinks that locking them up in gaol for long periods is the


answer. At some point, they have to come out again. If they reoffend, crime will inevitably rise. That is why we have tabled the new clause.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That was very much the voice of old Labour. We strongly believe that it is necessary to target those concerned and not act regardless of risk or need.

Mr. Davidson: With the permission of the House—

Hon. Members: No.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 281.

Division No. 43]
[5.49 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dewar, Donald


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dowd, Jim


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashdown, Paddy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashton, Joseph
Eastham, Ken


Austin-Walker, John
Ennis, Jeff


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bayley, Hugh
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Derek


Benton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Byers, Stephen
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Roy


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cox, Tom
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dafis, Cynog
Howells, Dr Kim


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Adam





Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Olner, Bill


Jamieson, David
Orme, Stanley


Janner, Greville
Pearson, Ian


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Keen, Alan
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Salmond, Alex


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Sheldon, Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shore, Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


Lynne, Ms Liz
Simpson, Alan


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McNamara, Kevin
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mandelson, Peter
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Touhig, Don


Maxton, John
Trickett, Jon


Meacher, Michael
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Michael, Alun
Walker, Sir Harold


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Wallace, James


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Watson, Mike


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley, Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mowlam, Ms Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony


Murphy, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Mrs. Jane Kennedy and


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mrs. Bridget Prentice.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Atkins, Robert
Bendall, Vivian






Beresford, Sir Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Biffen, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Body, Sir Richard
Garnier, Edward


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, John


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Sir Graham
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Brooke, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Heseltine, Michael


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Sir Robert


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Higgins, Sir Terence


Churchill, Mr
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hordem, Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Douglas


Cope, Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Curry, David
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Tom


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lamont, Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, John


Fowler, Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald





Mans, Keith
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marland, Paul
Soames, Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Speed, Sir Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Mellor, David
Spring, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stanley, Sir John


Moate, Sir Roger
Steen, Anthony


Molyneaux, Sir James
Stephen, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stem, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, John
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David
Trend, Michael


Portillo, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Renton, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Richards, Rod
Waldegrave, William


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew
Watts, John


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Wheeler, Sir John


Ryder, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sackville, Tom
Whittingdale, John


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Sir Roger
Young, Sir George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 9

WOMEN OFFENDERS

'.—(1) After section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9) The court shall grant a bail application by a woman unless it is satisfied it is contrary to public safety or the interests of justice to do so.
(10) The court shall specify its reasons for a refusal of any bail application made under (9) above."

(2) After section 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(2A) A court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on a woman of or over 21 years of age unless the court considers no other method of dealing with


her is appropriate; and for the purpose of determining whether any other method of dealing with her is appropriate the court shall obtain (from an officer of the local authority or otherwise) such information as it can about the offender's circumstances; and it shall also take into account any information before it concerning the offender's character and physical and mental condition.".'.—[Mr. McFall.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement last week on 16 January on the subject of the suicides at Cornton Vale prison in Stirling. It was made only after more than a year of campaigning by myself and others on the subject of suicides in that prison. The Minister knows that, tragically, one of my constituents lost her life—she was one of the six young women who committed suicide; the last one to attempt to take her life also resided in my constituency. Therefore, as well as having a party interest in the subject, I also have a personal one.
In his statement last week, the Secretary of State mentioned a number of the measures that are included in the new clause; we welcomed his comments on them, as we have been appealing to him to take action. Our only regret is the length of time and the amount of pressure that it took before the Secretary of State finally decided to act. On the same day as he made the statement, he responded to the chief inspector's report on Edinburgh prison and said that both cases had nothing to do with him. The new clause will ensure that such cases have everything to do with the Secretary of State, because the prevention of suicides—particularly of young women—has everything to do with the Secretary of State and is his responsibility. He has accepted the proposition of a bail hostel in Glasgow and the appointment of individuals to carry out work on addictions and to hold psychiatric sessions in the prison.

Dr. Godman: The new clause is designed to keep women out of Cornton Vale. In the light of what my hon. Friend said about his constituents, is he satisfied that those with suicidal tendencies receive adequate care and attention when they are incarcerated in Cornton Vale? Is he satisfied with the Government's anti-suicide measures?

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. When I was in America last summer on home affairs business, I visited prisons on the east coast. In every prison I visited, I asked about its suicide policy and the number of suicides. Hardly any suicides had been recorded in any of those prisons over the past 10 or 15 years, because they had adopted appropriate suicide prevention policies. There is no doubt that appropriate measures were not in place at Cornton Vale—largely, believe, because the Scottish Prison Service regarded it as something of a backwater and left it to get on with the job on its own. As a result, the proper procedures and measures were not implemented.
I have visited that prison twice in the past six months, most recently on 29 November. The governor, Kate Donegan, showed me around and I was impressed by the remedial work being undertaken there. However, she mentioned that many of the young women there are vulnerable and that it is hard for the prison authorities to

deal with such problems. In his report on the prison, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons in Scotland, Mr. Clive Fairweather, said that suicides would not end at what he described as "the death-culture prison" until more appropriate measures were implemented. We have campaigned long and hard to make the Secretary of State understand and do something about the issue of women prisoners, especially those at Cornton Vale.
The new clause would strengthen bail provision in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: The chief inspector of prisons voiced similar concerns in his report on Greenock prison. The problem that we are debating is not confined to Cornton Vale; it affects prisons throughout Scotland. As Mr. Fairweather pointed out, the problem may be part of a rising tendency among young people in Scotland to commit suicide. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done to protect vulnerable people?

Mr. McFall: I agree entirely. Only two years ago, a young constituent of mine, Gerry Deary, committed suicide in Greenock prison. The need to do something for young people is urgent. The chief inspector's reports on Cornton Vale, Greenock and Edinburgh prisons contain comments expressing professional discontent with the Government's handling of the situation in prisons. I accuse the Government of dereliction of duty in that respect.
Mr. Fairweather's report on Edinburgh prison, which came out on Friday, reveals an intolerable situation. He points out the current dangers within the prison and describes a flashpoint atmosphere which could erupt in the future. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State take a smug attitude; they sit on their hands and do nothing. The new clause would ensure that they address the problems at Cornton Vale and elsewhere and ensure that we have good order in our prisons.
Imposing good order is not some sort of do-gooding measure. Good order ensures that we do not have riots, that money is not needlessly spent clearing up behind them and that lives—whether those of prison officers or solicitors visiting prisons—are not put in danger. It is in the cause of good order that the new clause has been tabled.

Dr. Godman: This is an important issue and many people would benefit from the new clause if it were passed. Not long ago, in Greenock prison, two prisoners committed suicide within 25 hours of each other. Such tragedies have a distressing effect on prison officers, especially those directly involved—that is, those who discover the bodies. Suicides in prisons are terrible both for staff and for fellow prisoners.

Mr. McFall: Again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in whose constituency Cornton Vale is located, is not here to listen to the debate because he would learn from it. He sat in on earlier debates; yet he does not attend a debate which directly affects his own constituency. We should ask why that is. For the past year, we have been chasing the Secretary of State, asking him to address these issues and to acknowledge his responsibilities. We are debating


a clause which relates specifically to his constituency, but he is not here to listen to our proposals. Opposition Members have visited prisons and spoken to members of the Scottish Prison Service because we have an interest in the issue. I want the Secretary of State to show the same degree of interest.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman emphasised the difficulties at Cornton Vale and referred to last week's report on Edinburgh prison. Under the Bill, prisoners will have to earn days of remission. Does he agree that that will be much harder in prisons where there is overcrowding and no opportunity for rehabilitative work and that that will add to the tensions and pressure in Scotland's prisons, including Cornton Vale?

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. We all have long memories and we remember when the former Secretary of State, now Lord Younger of Prestwick, abolished parole. We remember the problems that that caused in Peterhead prison and elsewhere. We are dealing with a fragile situation.
Only this weekend, I received a communication from the Parole Board for Scotland telling me that the Government's intentions in respect of prison officers assessing prisoners for early release were a dangerous proposition. We want the Minister and the Secretary of State to understand that those with an interest, professional or otherwise, in the criminal justice system have the best interests of the prison service at heart, but they are not being heeded. I am putting forward the new clause with that in mind.
6.15 pm
The new clause would strengthen bail provision in Scotland to ensure that women are remanded in custody prior to trial or sentencing only when they pose a danger to public safety or where it is in the interests of justice to remand them. Those who are dangerous should be imprisoned, but those who pose no danger should not. That echoes the sentiments uttered by Mr. Clive Fairweather when he investigated Cornton Vale.
The new clause would also ensure that no woman was sentenced to detention or imprisonment until and unless the court had considered a full social inquiry report on her background and personal and domestic circumstances, including an assessment of any drugs dependency or mental health problem. It would also ensure that the court had considered all community-based disposals before making a decision to send a woman into custody.
I want to share with the Minister the feelings of my constituents, Jim and Anne Bollen, who tragically lost their daughter Angela in Cornton Vale. In the privacy and intimacy of their home, Mr. Bollen said to me, "Mr. McFall, she would not have committed suicide if there had been a proper community disposal available for her. She was no danger to society—she was a danger to herself and a problem to her family. If the courts had recognised that, they would have been assisting us. Instead"—here Mr. Bollen pointed to his three-year-old granddaughter—"my wife and I, at our age, have the responsibility for that child for the rest of our lives."

In their eyes, the irresponsibility of the criminal justice system is answerable. The responsibility for that comes back solely, fairly and squarely on the Government. The Secretary of State cannot get out of that, despite his assertions to the contrary. Anyone who considers the macho approach to law and order displayed in the Secretary of State's article in The Sun today knows that the Government are responsible for conditions in prisons. We shall be unrelenting in our efforts to ensure that the Government take their responsibilities seriously. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is now taking his seat—that is a welcome sight.
The new clause has been introduced to open up the debate on how women offenders should be dealt with in Scotland—in the light of 12 suicides or attempted suicides within 18 months at Cornton Vale and incidents at other prisons. We must also remember that the chief inspector of prisons pointed to the tinder box environment in our prisons. The first four suicides at Cornton Vale involved young women remanded prior to trial. Clive Fairweather made it clear in his report that many of the women remanded to Cornton Vale should not have been there, and need not have been there had bail hostels been available.
As I said earlier, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement last Thursday of funding for Glasgow city council's bail proposals. In partnership with the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Glasgow will quickly bring 15 bail beds on stream. I also welcome the additional money being made available to develop a new 15-bed bail hostel in the west of Scotland. The reason for the pressure is that many of the young people remanded to Cornton Vale come from the west of Scotland. That issue may be worthy of further examination.
I note that the Secretary of State said last week that additional money is being provided to deal with the drug-related problems experienced by a very large proportion of the prison population. I know that an addiction worker is being provided at Cornton Vale, as well as drug workers in the prisons in Glasgow.
There is also the question why so many young women from the west of Scotland find themselves in Cornton Vale. Is there a difference in drugs policy between the west of Scotland and the east of Scotland? The research money available should be used to examine that issue.

Dr. Godman: In the scheme of things that my hon. Friend is outlining, he has emphasised the importance of social background reports. Does he agree that a competent social worker can produce a good report within a few days of being given the task?

Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am making the point that the court has a responsibility. A number of courts needs to undergo an attitudinal change. Of course, there is also a responsibility on the social workers to produce good reports.
In the annual criminal justice planning statement submitted to the Secretary of State on 1 August 1996, Glasgow city council asked for an extension to the bail information and bail supervision service to cover the stipendiary court in Glasgow. In fact, a similar request had been made by the outgoing Strathclyde regional council in 1995. The Secretary of State's response last week, though


welcome, was therefore most definitely belated. However, it is an acceptance of the request by Glasgow city council and, formerly, Strathclyde regional council.
The agreement to fund additional prison, court and community-based posts to assist and improve assessment of drug-misusing women offenders will provide an infrastructure of services for which I have long asked. However, that is not enough. The law needs to be strengthened. No woman—arguably, no person—should be remanded in custody other than where it is in the interests of justice to do so or where public safety requires it. If that is so, the law should state it.
Current bail law is to be found in part III of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Sections 23 to 33 of that Act outline the bail process, procedures and conditions and how bail applications are to be dealt with. However, the provisions covering whether or not to grant bail other than for certain very serious crimes are always at the discretion of the court. Three times in section 23 the law states that the sheriff "at his discretion" may grant or refuse a bail application. That includes cases on summary procedure as well as those on petition.
The new clause would retain full judicial discretion over whether to grant bail to women, but shifts the presumption to one of bail normally being granted unless an exception can be justified. The exceptions are public safety and the interests of justice. Where the exception is to be exercised, the new clause requires the court to specify its reasons. Thus, the new clause gives a clear lead.
What are the numbers involved? The 1995 prison statistics bulletin, issued by the Scottish Office in October 1996, reveals that in 1995 a total of 876 women were remanded in custody—739 prior to trial and 137 awaiting sentencing. Clive Fairweather, the chief inspector of prisons, says that many of those women should not have been so remanded. The new clause will help to reduce the numbers if women remanded in custody to those cases where it is necessary for public safety or in the interests of justice.
Parliament has already decided in the 1995 Act that certain categories of person cannot be sentenced to detention or prison without a court first having to consider a report prepared by local authority social workers. Those categories are, first, all persons under 21 years of age, murder alone excluded and, secondly, all persons of whatever age facing custody for the first time. The new clause would widen those categories to include all women offenders. No probation order and no community service order can be made unless the court has first considered a social inquiry report. That is what the 1995 Act requires. How can a court, when dealing with a woman over the age of 21, consider a community-based disposal instead of prison if it does not even ask for a social inquiry report?
The prison staff and social workers know that many of the women sent to Cornton Vale need not be there, and I am sure that the Secretary of State also realises that. They know that many of them have a drugs problem. The facts have been emphasised time and again. The new clause would ensure that no woman could be sentenced to imprisonment in Scotland without a court having to consider, first, whether there is no other way of dealing with the woman in the community, secondly, the personal, family and domestic circumstances and background of the woman and, thirdly, an assessment of the woman's drug

dependency, where necessary. Only by being required to obtain a social inquiry report can a court honestly make such an informed decision.
I have investigated the numbers that might be involved. The 1995 prison statistics bulletin states that in 1995 some 1,293 women were sentenced to custody. Of those, 146 were under the age of 21. Of the adults, 634 were admitted for non-payment of a fine. We hope that the growth of supervised attendance orders as an alternative to prison for fine default will reduce that number. If I remember correctly, both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have said that they will try to do something to reduce the number of individuals going to prison for fine default.
The Minister may recollect that, when we debated the issue previously, we said that a woman with two children could be sent to prison for not paying a fine of £80 when it would cost the state more than £2,000 to keep her and look after her children. Surely, as we approach the 21st century, we should be more civilised and look for a more appropriate way of dealing with the non-payment of fines.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are doing everything in our power to extend supervised attendance orders throughout Scotland, specifically to deal with the point that he has made?

Mr. McFall: I agree. Confronted with those figures, however, the Minister may realise that not enough has been done and that the problem needs more urgent attention.
I can only hope that the growing use of supervised attendance orders as an alternative to prison for fine defaulters will reduce the numbers that I have given. We are still left with 513 other adult receptions, some of them repeat receptions—that is to say, of the same women. Others will be in custody for the first time and will be the subject of social inquiry reports. In some cases the courts, at their discretion, may have asked for such reports. The point is that the numbers involved are not great. As the Secretary of State conceded in his statement last week, it is therefore not a resource issue. Six hours spent on each social inquiry report represents fewer than 3,000 social work hours per year, so the total cost would be the equivalent of two full-time social workers.
6.30 pm
This is a simple, but practical, measure. I am aware that many of the issues that I have raised may apply equally to male offenders, but their numbers are much greater—8,217 custodial sentences in 1995—so there may be feasibility problems in terms of social work resources and court time for repeat appearances. Today's debate is designed to highlight the position of women offenders in Scotland, so if the Minister asks why we have not dealt with men, too, perhaps implying that the measure is discriminatory, I would reply that we have initiated the debate in the aftermath of the 12 attempted or successful suicides in Cornton Vale prison in an 18-month period.
I remind the Secretary of State that it was his own appointee—Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Clive Fairweather—who highlighted the problems of women in prison in Scotland and whose report to the Secretary of State called for alternatives to prison. Many


of these women, he said, should and could have been dealt with in the community. His report cannot be ignored. No prison for men has as bad a problem as Cornton Vale, so special measures are needed to deal with a unique problem.
Of course, many of the issues discussed today apply just as much to male offenders, but just because we cannot deal with the entire problem at once does not mean that we should be prevented from solving part of it. I believe that the measures announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State last week will be helpful. Meanwhile, the cost of doing nothing hitherto has been the lives of six young women in the Secretary of State's own constituency, and attempted suicides by a further six. Surely that will move Ministers to implement in full the proposals in the new clause for a supervision order to be considered by the courts before any woman can be sentenced to prison in Scotland. That, surely, is not too much to ask for.

Dr. Godman: Is not suicide more prevalent among remand prisoners than among those serving sentences of imprisonment following conviction in the courts?

Mr. McFall: That is certainly true—hence the new clause. Last week the Secretary of State showed that he realises that bail hostels are not particularly costly. Indeed, a 15-bed hostel with 24-hour staff cover will cost less than £200,000 a year to run. I believe that the Scottish Office has promised Glasgow city council almost 100 per cent. funding. I am pleased about that, but there is a need to do more.
I offer the House the new clause in the hope that the Government will listen constructively. We must move forward in a non-partisan fashion to remove the blight of the past 18 months from the Scottish criminal justice system.

Ms Rachel Squire: I fully support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has said. This weekend, while I was thinking about what to say in this evening's debate, by one of those strange coincidences, I was contacted at my surgery by the family of a young woman who is in Cornton Vale prison and whose case highlights a number of the reasons for new clause 9.
Hon. Members may have heard of the case of Louise Clarke; she and her family are constituents of mine. She is in prison because she was convicted of the culpable murder of her partner and sentenced to five years. I am not speaking in support of culpable murder, but my constituent's case shows just what can happen to people in Cornton Vale who are awaiting a court appearance or—as in Louise Clarke's case—who have been convicted and given a sentence.
Louise Clarke murdered her partner after years of domestic violence. She met him first when she was 14 years old. She had been referred to him because he, a community worker in a position of public trust and responsibility, was supposed to help her cope with the break-up of her parents' marriage. He then blatantly abused that position of trust and responsibility. Aged 38, he took full advantage of a 14-year-old girl. Eventually

she moved in with him, whereupon she was subjected to several years of domestic violence—until she finally attacked and killed him.
I do not condone murder; I do emphasise that many of the young women in Cornton Vale prison are, like Louise Clarke, as much the victims of their circumstances as were those against whom they perpetrated their crimes. Like many other young women in that prison, Louise Clarke grew up being subjected to violence and abuse. She needs full support and rehabilitation to help her adjust to living a normal life and, hopefully, a happy and healthy life when she is eventually discharged.
Many of my constituents and others feel that Louise Clarke's sentence was most unfair, given the circumstances. Indeed, her family and friends handed into the Secretary of State for Scotland a petition with more than 2,000 signatures. Although the Secretary of State was not there to receive it himself, it was handed to representatives of his office some weeks ago but the family and friends concerned have yet to receive even an acknowledgement.

Mrs. Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that sentences passed on women are often much harsher than those passed on men who have committed a similar offence?

Ms Squire: Yes. A man in circumstances similar to those of Louise Clarke would have been dealt with far more leniently.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I simply want to say that I am sorry if the hon. Lady's constituents did not receive an acknowledgement of their petition. It has been the policy in the Scottish Office, as a financial saving measure, not to acknowledge correspondence and representations when they are received, but to wait until there is a substantive response. However, we have just changed that policy, although it does involve additional cost, for the very reason that the hon. Lady gave—it causes concern to people who think that nothing is happening because they have received no acknowledgement. I shall look into the case that the hon. Lady raises.

Ms Squire: I thank the Secretary of State. I am sure that the family, friends and several hundred people who signed the petition will be glad to hear his statement.

Mrs. Fyfe: A little earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said that a woman is likely to receive a harsher sentence than a man for a similar crime, including murder. That may come as a surprise to at least some of our colleagues but it is certainly the case. Women Members of Parliament probably follow those matters a bit more closely because we receive many letters about them. For example, I recall a case in an English court where a man got away with murdering his wife because she nagged him. Here is a case of a woman who suffered domestic violence for years and years before she finally snapped and committed murder. It is obvious that the woman is not a danger to society but that years of abuse drove her to those desperate straits. It was therefore completely unjustified to give her a harsh sentence.

Ms Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for those sentiments. I am confident that my constituents and the woman's family will take great comfort from her comments, with which I fully agree.
Such cases show the importance of greater monitoring of people placed in a position of trust and responsibility, particularly for young people. I know that that matter has been raised in the House.
That case emphasises the importance of prison and other staff being available for rehabilitative work with the women at Comton Vale prison. My constituent's mother emphasised that the Cornton Vale staff were very understanding and supportive of her daughter, but she made it clear that the pressures and strains on staff meant that sufficient time and resources were not available.
Indeed, the staff must at times feel that they are as much prisoners of the regime in which they work as the prisoners themselves. They are imprisoned by overcrowding, insufficient staffing levels and too few resources. As was said earlier, they work in a tinderbox environment, which puts tremendous stress and strain on them. It does not allow them the job satisfaction that they would receive if they could offer the support and rehabilitative services necessary to ensure that women prisoners were discharged to lead full, happy and healthy lives.

Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the new clause would be to lift some of that burden from the hard-working staff at Comton Vale?

Ms Squire: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The new clause would benefit all the women at Cornton Vale prison, both prisoners and staff.
Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), in response to something that the Minister said, mentioned the role of highly skilled and qualified social work staff in providing rehabilitation and support services, and their involvement in the rehabilitation of young women such as those at Cornton Vale. I am extremely concerned by press reports over the weekend, which show that the Government are determined to add to their privatisation list by privatising social work services and removing the highly trained and qualified group of staff available to work with young women in prisons and elsewhere. Doing so will benefit the private sector rather than provide the high-quality, professional support and rehabilitative services that are needed if we are to reduce our prison population and create a safer and more stable society for everyone.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Part of the debate so far has concentrated on the sentencing of women offenders. I do not wish to trespass on that aspect, but I urge caution in attempts to compare one case with another. There is no doubt that the circumstances of each criminal case are almost always unique. For example, while the family of the person convicted may consider a sentence to be unduly harsh, the family of the person who died may have a diametrically different view.
It is legitimate to argue that, so far as possible, there should be greater consistency in sentencing. The fact that the former Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ross, is now to have responsibility for the continuing professional education of

judges seems a substantial and worthwhile step in the right direction. Perhaps out of that and other such initiatives, greater consistency may emerge.
We must also be careful not to form our judgment on the basis of newspaper reports of various cases. Often an important factor, tending towards leniency or suggesting that a more severe sentence should be imposed, is omitted from the report.
I shall begin my substantive remarks by congratulating the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who I see has slipped out for a moment, not just on the way that he proposed the new clause, but on the remarkable determination he demonstrated in ensuring that his constituents, to whom he referred in his speech, were afforded legal aid for the purpose of representation at the conjoined fatal accident inquiry that is to be held into the deaths of three unfortunate young women at Cornton Vale.
It was extraordinary behaviour on the part of the Scottish Legal Aid Board—the legal aid authorities in Scotland—that legal aid was not immediately allowed when an application for that purpose was made to it. It is difficult to conceive of any issue in which an individual has a greater interest than in being represented at an inquiry whose purpose is to seek to determine the cause of death of that individual's daughter, in this case.
I was a member of the old Legal Aid Central Committee and for a year before entering the House was a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. From time to time, I had to deal with such applications or appeals in relation to such applications. I find it extraordinary that the board should have taken the view that it took. I hope that we will see no repetition of that. The board operates under statute. If its conduct is unreasonable, it will be open to judicial review. We would all regard it as an unnecessary waste of public funds if applicants for legal aid were compelled to go the Court of Session seeking judicial review of what seemed patently unreasonable decisions. In that regard, we should all recognise the determination of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, and congratulate him.

Dr. Godman: I offer the hon. and learned Gentleman my compliments on his remarks about the Scottish Legal Aid Board. I hope that they are brought to the board's attention. In the near future, there is to be yet another fatal accident inquiry into yet another suicide at Greenock prison. I hope that the board will act much more sympathetically than in the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman contributes often to these debates and, on this occasion as on many others, he makes a perceptive and constructive contribution.
Cornton Vale prison was designed in the 1960s and built in the early 1970s. Its design and construction were a direct response to the physical inadequacy of Gateside prison in Greenock, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where the physical conditions were generally regarded as wholly inappropriate for the proper treatment, care and imprisonment of female offenders.
It is now 30 years since the original conception of Cornton Vale. In the aftermath of the most recent suicide, I put forward the view, not as a panacea or an easy response, that it was now time to consider whether


Cornton Vale is a suitable institution, in terms of its physical characteristics, for the care of those who are on remand or those who have been imprisoned.
I am not an expert in penology of this kind, but if the physical characteristics of Cornton Vale are inappropriate, we should not shrink from considering whether to close the facility and build somewhere else something that contains the physical characteristics appropriate to deal with the young women on which much of the debate has centred.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Cornton Vale will not have been enhanced by the fact that the Secretary of State proposes to give over one of the wings to young offenders? That would reduce the complex, where I used to be a prison visitor, to two thirds of its previous size, and mix the prisoners, placing women prisoners and young offenders side by side.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me if he has been a prison visitor at Cornton Vale; I have visited it only in a professional capacity, and therefore may not have seen all parts of it, as the hon. Gentleman has.
When a series of suicides has occurred, as has been the case, one must be willing to think the unthinkable. My argument is that we need a root-and-branch approach to the question of how we deal with women who are caught up in the criminal law system, whether on remand or after conviction. If, as a result of such a review, it became clear that the physical characteristics of Cornton Vale were inappropriate, as Gateside was in the 1960s, we should be prepared to take the step of closing the facility and building a more appropriate one.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman's good faith, but has he considered how the staff of Cornton Vale would react to the statement, from a man of his standing, that the prison should be closed? Those who are constituents of mine were extremely upset about it. I do not know whether they speak for the Prison Officers Association, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was a terrible blow to morale. On reflection, does he not think that he should have spoken privately to Ministers, rather than publicly?

Mr. Campbell: I stand by the judgment that I made. I do not say that we should close the prison. I say that, if the prison's physical characteristics are inappropriate to the proper treatment of women in the criminal law system, we should consider creating a prison in which there are such physical characteristics as enable us to deal with them.
There is little doubt that a prison where there have been the tragic circumstances and the number of suicides that have occurred at Cornton Vale is not fulfilling its responsibility, however sincere and competent the staff are. We should be willing to consider root-and-branch alternatives.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, as I know that others wish to speak.
We need a new regime for the treatment of women on remand and after conviction. We must acknowledge that the responses and requirements of women who find themselves in conflict with the criminal law, and the way in which they should be dealt with, are entirely different from those of men who find themselves in conflict with the criminal law. I make that judgment from my own professional experience, but it is supported by much of the recent evidence of the kind of people who have been driven to the terrible solution, if that is the right word to use in this context, of taking their own lives.
The matter is one of considerable importance. The fact that the new clause would discourage the placing of women in prison, either on remand or after conviction, in my judgment represents a proper approach which should commend itself to the House.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton pointed out that many women receive custodial sentences for fine default. We have seen anecdotal, front-page stories about women who were sent to prison because they did not have a television licence and could not afford to pay the fine levied upon them. Such people should not be in prison. If Ministers will not accept that argument, I am pretty sure that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who recently became president of the Prison Reform Trust, will sympathise with it.
The Minister is about to leap to his feet and say that the Government share my view. If that is so, why are so many women sent to prison for fine default? It is because our system is insensitive: it does not contain a sufficient range of means of dealing with people who find themselves in that position. For that reason, I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the House. It is a forerunner of our treating women in the criminal law system in a way that they unquestionably deserve in the manner of a truly civilised society.

7 pm

Mr. Canavan: I support new clause 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Scotland has one of the highest prison populations per capita of any country in Europe. When I hear the Secretary of State speak, I sometimes get the impression that he wants to increase rather than decrease our prison population to such an extent that the construction of prisons may be the only growth industry in Scotland.
Cornton Vale has inevitably been mentioned. I do not have any up-to-date, detailed information about that prison, but many years ago it was in my constituency and I visited it occasionally. No prison is a nice place—I do not suppose that they are meant to be—but it is nonsense to believe the claptrap peddled by some elements of the media that prisoners are living in the lap of luxury. Loss of liberty is obviously the greatest deprivation experienced by anyone who serves a prison sentence.
Some 20 years ago, Cornton Vale was one of the most modern and most civilised prisons in Scotland. I have visited quite a few prisons since then, and some seem Victorian in their conditions. If the Government were serious about penal reform, they would try to make conditions in our prisons more humane, so that ex-prisoners would not harbour such anti-society and anti-establishment feelings.
Although Cornton Vale was, by Scottish standards, civilised and reasonably humane 20 years ago, I am alarmed by what has occurred in recent times. I think that


the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible for prisons in Scotland and as the constituency Member of Parliament, should take a more active interest in what is going on. It is unacceptable that six young women in Cornton Vale have committed suicide in the past 18 months—an average of one death every three months—and the situation warrants inquiry at the highest level.
Most of the young women imprisoned at Cornton Vale are very vulnerable—many are teenagers who were convicted of drug-related offences. For many, a custodial sentence at Cornton Vale was not the first option of the sheriff or the judge who sentenced them. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and others have said, many initially received non-custodial sentences, such as fines, because the judiciary deemed those penalties most appropriate in the circumstances. However, default in the payment of fines led to their imprisonment in Cornton Vale.
New clause 9 seems to present a reasonable alternative. It places an obligation on the court to
grant a bail application by a woman unless it is satisfied it is contrary to public safety or the interests of justice to do so.
It also places an obligation on the court not to pass a custodial sentence on a woman unless
the court considers no other method of dealing with her is appropriate".
It emphasises bail and non-custodial sentences rather than detention and prison sentences.
I admit that, for males and females, prison sentences are appropriate and inevitable in some cases. For example, a custodial sentence is appropriate if someone commits a terrible crime of violence and poses a danger to society. I am convinced that the majority of prisoners at Cornton Vale could receive non-custodial sentences that would be more appropriate to their crimes—particularly when they represent no great danger to public safety. I hope that the Government will consider the new clause seriously and construct bail hostels and alternative forms of accommodation as the new clause suggests. Too many young women have died in Cornton Vale, and it is time for the Secretary of State to act in the interests of justice.

Mrs. Fyfe: If the Minister rejects new clause 9, I imagine that he will do so on the ground that it relates only to women offenders. He may believe that it should be rejected on the ground of equal treatment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, statistics show that, over the years, far fewer women than men have committed serious crimes resulting in gaol sentences. The conduct of men in prison tends to be different from that of women: whereas women tend to turn violent feelings inwards and harm themselves, male prisoners may be more likely to act aggressively against other prisoners. For those reasons, we must look afresh at the treatment of women who are remanded in prison or who are serving prison sentences. That is why I support new clause 9.
Some hon. Members have said that by far the most common crime among women serving prison sentences is fine default. It may seem obvious, but women do not carry a gene for fine default; there is nothing in female DNA to make it more likely. It is a crime of poverty. Women are more likely to fall foul of the law in that way because they tend to have lower incomes than the male half of

the human race. As other hon. Members have said, it is unreasonable that those women have to spend time in gaol when there are other ways of dealing with such crime. Taking those women out of the system would ensure that there were far fewer women serving sentences in Cornton Vale.
There is only one women's prison in Scotland, demonstrating how little need there is for prison places for women in Scotland. It is important, however, to consider the research carried out in the United Kingdom. I should be glad if research into the issue were conducted in Scotland. Research in England has shown that courts have taken a sterner view of women breaking the law than of men breaking the same law. I do not know whether that happens in Scottish courts, but we should find out. It certainly seems so, with so many women in prison simply for failing to pay a fine. That says something about the courts' attitude.
Other hon. Members have talked about the deaths of women on remand. That is a tragedy for the young women concerned and it is appalling for their families, who see them go to prison on remand for a relatively trivial offence—I believe that that was true of all the cases—with dreadful results that could not normally be foreseen.
Some of the deaths have been linked with drugs and suicidal tendencies. Rather than attempt to create a round-the-clock suicide watch in prison, we should ask whether people who are so prone to suicide should be in prison. Men or women, should they not be in the care of a mental hospital? Even in mental hospitals, it is difficult to ensure the safety of prisoners determined to commit suicide. If a mental hospital, with all its experience of such cases, finds it difficult, it is only to be expected that prison warders will find it even more difficult to tackle the situation.
I have already said that women are more likely to turn violence on themselves than on others. When I visited Cornton Vale some years ago with my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and others some years ago, one of the warders said that they had had cases of women prisoners slashing their wrists with broken teacups, but the women did not attack others. That was typical conduct of women who were severely upset by being in prison. The loss of liberty is bound to affect anybody—man or woman—and is very difficult to deal with. Knowing that women prisoners might turn violence on themselves, we must consider how many of them should be dealt with in other ways rather than imprisonment.
On my visit to Cornton Vale, I was amazed to discover that actions that could have improved circumstances were not being taken. I know that there have been some improvements, but I should like the Minister to address some of the issues. Even education and training opportunities were limited compared with those available to male prisoners. Little was being done to help those women to rehabilitate themselves into civil life and stay out of trouble.
Incredibly, the reason given was that there were so few women prisoners. The fact that women tend to be by far the more law-abiding sex is held against those who commit crimes. As there are so few of them, they get fewer opportunities to find activities that would help them to be useful members of society when they leave prison. I remember that there was a very limited curriculum.


Work opportunities at that time did not extend far beyond sewing shrouds, which I would have thought would have depressed any young woman intolerably. The authorities could have exercised a bit more imagination than that.
7.15 pm
Complaints have been expressed over the years about attitudes to prisoners. I know that some feel that prison staff have come in for much unjust criticism. We also hear from prisoners and ex-prisoners that they felt the regime to be too harsh. We should consider that and look into the day-to-day conduct of prison life.
We have talked about public safety. It is important to remember that we are not saying that someone who is a danger to public safety should be freed, but a bail application should be granted for those who are safe to be let out. I find it fantastic that we even have to argue the case, because we have all heard of rapists and others who were a danger to society being let out on bail and allowed to roam about, yet a woman who has not paid a fine is considered too great a danger to society to be allowed out.
With so few women in Scotland having served a gaol sentence, it should not be difficult to research these questions and decide on the best approach. What offences should land people in gaol? In what circumstances should bail be granted? Are we certain that there is fair treatment between the sexes for offenders? The narrow research base should make it simple to carry out that work and ensure that the system is truly just to women offenders in Scotland.

Mrs. Adams: I support new clause 9 and hope that the Government will seriously consider what my hon. Friends have said. It is clear that not nearly as many women commit crimes as their male counterparts. Someone once said to me that if there were no men, the world would be a crime-free place full of fat, happy women. That might well be true. Women are certainly not as oriented towards committing crime, but statistics in England show that they appear to be treated more harshly than men for the same crimes. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider treating women differently in the prison and criminal justice systems.
The Minister may argue that treating women differently would be discrimination in their favour. I make no apology for asking him to do that, because women behave differently from men. When they break the law, it tends to be trivial, or at least non-violent, offences. They tend not to commit violent offences, and when they do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said, it is often in circumstances in which there has been a great deal of domestic violence, resulting in the woman eventually breaking and retaliating for the first time, frequently after many years of abuse.
Women in prison tend to be there on minor charges, often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and others have pointed out, for defaulting on fines on trivial issues such as television licences.
In such cases, not only the women concerned but their families are often affected. It is inhumane to punish women to such an extent, but it is also uneconomical. Women are being imprisoned, usually for some weeks,

for minor crimes such as defaulting on a £100 fine for failing to pay for a television licence. We may have to keep such women in prison for two or three months, and, moreover, we may have to support their families. Children often have to be taken into care, and the need for support frequently does not end when a woman is released and the family are back together.

Ms Rachel Squire: I support what my hon. Friend says. Some years ago, I had to deal with a family in which the mother of three children had been given a prison sentence. Tremendous efforts were made to ensure that the children could continue to live in the community, with full support from the social services, while awaiting their mother's eventual release. Fortunately, one of the children was 16 years old at the time. As my hon. Friend has said, support was also needed after the mother's release. This important matter needs to be taken fully into account.

Mrs. Adams: I agree.
Families often enter a vicious circle that they cannot break. The children as well as the mother are in the system and cannot escape from it, and that frequently leads to their committing offences in future. Such a system is not economical. It does not do society any good, and it certainly does not do the women involved any good.
Women prisoners often come from difficult backgrounds, and what they have done may relate to their particular circumstances. Many more women with psychological problems are in prison than we would expect, and many are dependent on drugs—not only illegal but prescribed drugs to which they have become addicted. We are not helping such women; we are simply locking them up.
We know that women do not do well in prison. They often do less well than men. I wonder whether that is because the woman in a family is often the responsible person—the person who looks after the household accounts, and runs the domestic side. In locking up such women, we are not only shutting them away from their families but taking all their responsibilities from them. Women often find it difficult to cope with that.
The Minister must look carefully at new clause 9. He must obtain social background reports on women who enter the prison system, and note the number of women prisoners who have been imprisoned for trivial, minor offences such as fine default. I know that, in some instances, he has tried to address the issue, but I do not think that we are currently going far enough.
We should treat women prisoners differently from their male counterparts. They are usually in prison for very different reasons, and the circumstances that landed them there are usually very different. We should not be locking up non-violent women who have committed minor offences, sometimes creating the spiral that leads whole families into not just the social work system but the criminal justice system.

Mr. McAllion: No doubt the Minister will argue—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) suggested—that one of the objections to the new clause is that it relates only to women prisoners. No doubt he will say that suicides occur in men's prisons as well, and of course he is right, but I agree with my hon. Friend that women are far more likely than men to turn violence against themselves.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I spent a number of years as a teacher in a list D school in Dundee, which looked after young male offenders. In fact, the boys were aged up to 16, so perhaps they were not as young as all that. I can recall no occasion on which any of the young inmates turned violence against himself rather than the other boys—or, indeed, the staff, including me on a number of occasions. On one famous occasion, a bowl of hot soup was thrown over me.
Towards the end of my time at that school, I was transferred for some of the week to work in a list D school for girls. It was obvious to me immediately that the girls at that school—Balgay in Dundee—were prone to trying to cut their wrists and push their wrists through windows in an attempt to communicate their problems to those around them. Anyone who works with young offenders, or in the Prison Service itself, could describe such behaviour to the Minister, and I am sure that for a long time he has been advised that women prisoners are much more likely to damage themselves and commit suicide. I hope that he will take that into consideration in his reply.
Back in February 1996—at least according to a Government White Paper—random mandatory testing for drugs was introduced in Cornton Vale. That was another of the great ideas that the Secretary of State for Scotland has from time to time to show that he is a tough guy when it comes to law and order. I am sure that he sees himself as a Jimmy Cagney figure, sorting out the bad guys throughout Scotland; but most people in Scotland see him as a Baldrick figure from "Blackadder Goes Forth". Not only is he small, and not only does he look like Baldrick, but he clearly has "cunning plans" which never come off.
This plan certainly did not come off. Nearly a year later, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service tried to explain the spate of suicides that had taken place at Cornton Vale in the following terms: the cause, he said, was the higher rate of drug-taking by women prisoners, and the breakdown of their life style. There we have it—yet another Government initiative that has not worked. Once again, the Government are trying to respond to a crisis that was created because they had not the foresight to deal with the circumstances that were to lead to that crisis in the longer term.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House on 16 January saying what he intended to do about the crisis at Cornton Vale, he made it in the form of a written answer—as is fairly usual among Scottish Office Ministers nowadays—rather than laying himself open to questions from Scottish Opposition Members. He opened that statement by saying:
The care of prisoners and the prevention of suicide in prisoners are operational matters for the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service".
There we have it again—the right hon. Gentleman trying to distance himself from any responsibility for what may be going on in Scottish prisons, and saying, "It is nothing to do with me, guy; it is down to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. If there is anything wrong, it is his fault, not mine." That is a despicable attitude for Ministers of the Crown to take, particularly given that the chief executive, unlike hon. Members, cannot answer back to the Minister concerned and hold him to account.
Most of us would have no problem with the actual measures set out in the written answer. The right hon. Gentleman refers to
new arrangements for the induction of remand prisoners.
That is a good idea. More time out of the cell for prisoners in Cornton Vale is another good idea. He also refers to
increased access to education, physical training",
and access to groups such as the Samaritans, Rape Crisis and Women's Aid. That is all good stuff. He says that extra staffing and more money—these days we do not hear about that from either side of the House—have been provided to address
the drug-related problems experienced by a very large proportion of the prisoner population."—[Official Report, 16 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 307.]
He also mentions additional psychiatric sessions and five additional posts for drug reduction work.
7.30 pm
That is all fine: no one complains about that. That is the sort of initiative that we want for women in Cornton Vale. The new bail hostel in Glasgow, which provides 15 beds, is another good initiative. But what about those women who are in Cornton Vale but who should not be? The Secretary of State's written answer completely ducks that question. Many women are in prison who should not be. The great thing about the new clause is the principle that there should be fewer women in prison. We should do everything in our power to stop women being sent to prison. That goes against the Government's thinking.
The Secretary of State has already boasted that he wants more offenders banged up in more prisons for a much longer time. The Scottish Prison Service has had to face an outbreak of suicides, especially at Cornton Vale, and hostage taking in male prisons. The Secretary of State faces growing discontent in the Scottish Prison Service among staff and prisoners, but his solution of banging up more people in more prisons only makes the problem worse.
The White Paper spoke about a new accommodation block in Greenock prison, which will have 60 new cells in two galleries. We were promised a new private prison at Kilmarnock—provided by and staffed by the private sector—offering another 500 places. The White Paper says that, after the election, the Government will have to contract out the construction of more prisons to other private sector providers. With all those grand plans to turn Scotland into a great prison yard, does the Minister intend to build any more prisons for women, or is Cornton Vale considered to be sufficient to cope with the demand for places for women prisoners in the future? What is the Government's thinking? Do they share the Opposition's view that we should send fewer women to prison? If they think that more and more women should be sent to prison, there are likely to be more suicides in prison.
It is ironic that, at a time when the social fabric in Scotland is being dismantled by the Government, they want to build more prisons. The social fabric is essential to the health of local communities. As schools, community centres, leisure facilities and swimming pools are taken away from local people, their communities become less welcoming, darker and much more dangerous places. The social fabric of Scotland is being torn apart,


and the Government's only response is to build more prisons and to bang up more people. That will lead to the problems that we are experiencing in Cornton Vale.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Government have introduced a series of measures to stop drug taking inside Scottish prisons—drug taking was one of the main reasons for the suicides. Mr. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, has spoken on the record about drug taking. An article in the press says:
Addressing the problem of drugs in Scottish prisons, Mr. Frizzell said prisons should not be fortresses. He added: 'It would be very difficult to keep drugs out. There is a whole culture of drug-taking that is very hard to deal with.'
Mr. Frizzell is at the cutting edge, and has to deal with situations inside prisons. He says that it cannot be stopped, but the Minister says it can. He says that for purely political reasons, because of the general election, although he knows that drug taking will continue in prisons. If it does continue, more people will be in difficulty, and more women prisoners will take their own lives.
The extra 15 beds in the bail hostel in Glasgow are welcome, but Glasgow and Edinburgh already have bail hostels, whereas there is none anywhere else in Scotland. Ministers and other hon. Members must realise that Scotland is not just the central belt or the Glasgow-Edinburgh axis: there is a large part of Scotland outside that axis which should also be taken into consideration. People from Dundee, Aberdeen, Ayrshire and elsewhere will ask where the bail hostels are for their areas. We do not want everyone to have to troop down to Glasgow or Edinburgh because there is no provision elsewhere in Scotland.

Mr. Connarty: The title of this Bill was of interest. It became known as the Dostoevsky Bill, and I said that it could be Dostoevsky's masterpiece "The Possessed". Having taken it through Committee and seen how it has come out, I think that it should rather be compared with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", because it is just a confection to satisfy certain cravings on the right wing of people's thoughts. Incarceration—slamming people up and making it hard on them—satisfies people's deep longing to feel more safe and secure than they feel after 17 years of Conservative Government. The Secretary of State fits my idea of a political Willy Wonka turning out sweets and casting them to all sorts of people in society to try to win them over in his favour. The Bill contains mostly bitter sweeties—as we know them in Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will take a serious look at new clause 9, because it is positive and chimes with people's concerns about crime. People also have deeper concerns about how we should treat vulnerable people—who may also be offensive towards others—as well as try to protect society from their negative influences. That is what new clause 9 is about. It calls into question the appropriateness of prisons, including Cornton Vale. Scotland has only one prison for female, long-term prisoners.
Cornton Vale prison is not the worst female prison: I have visited Holloway. It is a pity that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke about Cornton Vale continuing, is not present, because I can tell him that Holloway is one of the most

frightening places where any human being can be incarcerated. It was designed as a hospital and has a wing which is full of women psychiatric patients. It was like visiting Bedlam. I am glad to say that we have nothing like that in Cornton. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned. If the clause is accepted, it could later be included in the legislation covering the rest of the United Kingdom. If it is appropriate to prevent women from going to Cornton Vale, which was designed in the 1970s, it is all the more appropriate to prevent women from being sent to the hell of Holloway prison in London, especially if they are vulnerable or known to need psychiatric treatment.
I have publicly criticised the changes that have been made at Cornton. I do not accept the excuses given for using one of the blocks for young offenders. Mixing the two regimes, even if there is a big fence between them, will heighten the inappropriateness of sending vulnerable women to Cornton Vale. The physical nature and the regime of the prison was included in the excellent inspector's report in 1996—he visited the prison between 19 and 30 May 1996. Every page of the report gives more weight to new clause 9. Given the condition of Cornton Vale in 1996, it is not a place where we should put anyone if it were inappropriate and if another form of disposal could be found.
The report was in response to three suicides. Annex 6 shows that, by the time the report was produced, there had been four suicides and three other attempted suicides—mostly by hanging. There have now been six suicides. It is worth while looking at the different sections—page 9 deals with drugs and page 10 gives an analysis of drugs. Most people who go into Cornton have had some contact with drugs. In Cornton, as in other prisons, because cannabis can be traced in the bloodstream for up to 30 days, people are switching to harder drugs, such as heroin, which is out of the bloodstream in two days. The drug regime is getting harder, and some users are becoming more determined.
Page 14 clearly shows that there is concern among the staff as well as among the prisoners about suicides. When we put vulnerable people into such pressure situations, particularly those who are on remand, it seems that women, as hon. Members have said, tend to commit self-harm. New clause 9 has a great deal of merit, because we should not place people in such establishments.
I should like to comment on the staff and their responses. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke about some of the sweeties that the Secretary of State gave people in a sudden rush. The Secretary of State, whose party has been in government for 17 years and who has represented Stirling since 1983, suddenly initiated a spate of amendments affecting the regime in that prison. The ratio of male to female staff has been increasing. The inspector found that inappropriate and something has been done about it. Bail hostels are being provided, as are regimes for dealing with drugs, and all this has been done in a rush before the election. It is all about casting sweeties to people in the hope that they will forget the massive failures in the treatment of women prisoners.
There is clearly a malaise among the staff, and it has been reported. Pages 103 and 104 of the inspector's report show that the staff complained about too little training and many staff members said that they felt extremely isolated in the prison and were undermined by the


suicides. They found that the regime was inappropriate for them to create a caring atmosphere. All that strongly argues that the new clause is the most appropriate way to deal with women who do not require to be incarcerated. I hope that the Government will see the logic of that and will accept the new clause.

Dr. Godman: By way of preface to a couple of questions to the Minister and before my speech in support of the new clause, I should like to say that any soft or sentimental feelings that I had about crime or criminals were knocked out of me by my service in the Royal Military Police and as a member of the local committee of Edinburgh prison.
Is it right that recent suicides in Cornton Vale prison are far in excess of the suicide rate among women of a similar age in Scotland, whereas, however sad it may be, the incidence of suicide among male prisoners tragically reflects a growing tendency towards suicide among young, disturbed males in Scotland?
My second question relates to Cornton Vale and alternatives to it. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) reminded us that Cornton Vale was a replacement for Gateside prison in my constituency. A friend of my wife and myself was an officer at Gateside and Cornton Vale and said that the latter was a vast improvement on the former and that the best option would be a new prison for women. What is the Minister's view on the feasibility of a new prison for women? Perhaps he favours the dispersal of women prisoners to local male prisons. What is the attitude of the Scottish Prison Service on dispersal?
The new clause would benefit both prisoners and women prison officers. It would certainly relieve much of the strain felt by the latter in their attempts to look after the former in difficult conditions. Today a young woman whom I know and who lives in Inverclyde has been remanded on bail by a sheriff in the west of Scotland. Although the case is sub judice, I feel able to say that that sheriff made a sensible decision. On the whole, sheriffs make such decisions in bail applications by women. But we need more than the discretion of sheriffs and I support the new clause because, as I say, it will benefit women prisoners and prison officers.
As the Minister knows, there is to be yet another fatal accident inquiry into the suicide of a young person in Greenock prison. Our prison staff do a fine job in difficult conditions, but they require more resources and facilities.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I pay tribute to Governor Kate Donegan. I have visited Cornton Vale, as has the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), whom I accompanied. I have visited the prison a number of times since then, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I offer my condolences to the families of those who have died, and I am concerned about the number of suicides at Cornton Vale.
Last year we announced our intention to use the empty spaces in Cornton Vale for male young offenders so as to reduce overcrowding elsewhere. That accommodation has been segregated from the rest of the establishment by a fence, but because of the current pressures on Cornton

Vale, the transfer of male young offenders has been postponed for the present to allow the governor and staff to concentrate on improving the women's regime.

Mr. Connarty: Does the Minister accept that in the inspector's report the staff said that more women than they expected were under observation? They said that one of the reasons for having prisoners on the upper floors, although they would have preferred them on the lower floors, was overcrowding. At the same time, the prison wing that has been mentioned was left empty for the transfer of young offenders.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have no doubt that the governor and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service will take into account the needs of women in Cornton Vale and the need to avoid overcrowding, especially among vulnerable young prisoners.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke about suicidal prisoners being in mental hospitals. If a medical officer considers that a prisoner requires hospital treatment, that will be arranged. However, the problem is not that simple. Some suicidal prisoners do not exhibit symptoms which cause medical concern. The Scottish Prison Service suicide prevention strategy is being revised to help staff better identify prisoners who may be at risk and the service will draw on the recommendations of reports by Professor Gunn of the Institute of Psychiatry and Dr. Power of the university of Stirling.
Courts are currently required to obtain social inquiry reports in all cases where a custodial sentence has been imposed on offenders up to and including the age of 20. Those must also be obtained when persons of 21 or over are facing a sentence of imprisonment for the first time. Some 28,000 are requested each year by the courts, at an average cost of £211 per court.
The Government and the Scottish Prison Service have implemented a range of measures to tackle these issues. We have implemented or are implementing the vast majority of the recommendations in last year's report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. That move has introduced new arrangements for the induction of remand prisoners, has resulted in extra time out of cells and has increased access to education, physical training and other opportunities. Some outside agencies are now working in prisons, and remand prisoners now share a cell to encourage mutual support.
All those measures are designed to alleviate the problems that prisoners, and especially those on remand, might experience. It is by that route that action should be taken rather than by requiring courts to limit their considerations on the basis of gender. New clause 9 would fetter unduly the discretion of the courts, which already take into account the factors identified in the new clause in reaching decisions on bail. In taking those decisions, the courts must have regard to public safety and the administration of justice, and the range of penalties available for the breaching of bail orders reflects that.
The courts also have responsibility for dealing with bail offenders. We have heard Opposition proposals for tough action on bail bandits. The courts at present have the discretion available to them to refuse bail where the accused has a record of bail abuse. By limiting that discretion to instances where public safety or the interests


of justice apply, the courts may not have the same freedom to remand women in custody where they consider such action to be most appropriate.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about the discretion of the courts. A court must grant bail unless, in the exercise of its discretionary right of refusal, it is of the opinion that, in looking to the public interest and securing the ends of justice, there is good reason why bail should not be granted. This approach applies to both men and women. I must tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that bail beds are provided in Aberdeen and Dundee, and we expect a new hostel to open in July this year. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I do not doubt for one moment that the interests of Dundee are important.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week, the Government have extended the bail information scheme to include the stipendiary magistrates courts in Glasgow. We have offered £50,000 to convert properties operated by the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders for use as bail accommodation. Officials are discussing with Glasgow city council financial support for the addition of 15 bail bed spaces. The availability of those spaces will assist the courts in releasing an accused person on bail where the only reason for refusing bail is that the accused does not have a normal place of domicile. The hon. Member for Dundee, East will be glad to hear that similar proposals are being discussed with Dundee city council.
Much has been written recently about the link between suicides and drugs. While those who may have been taking drugs or who have life style breakdowns are susceptible to suicide, there is a range of possible explanations for the recent suicides—including depression and a lack of hope for the future on the part of the inmates. I can tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that mandatory drug testing is providing a clearer picture of drug taking and has provided a clearer message that drug taking will not be tolerated. It is helping staff to target support measures on those prisoners who need help in tackling their drug problems. Some women prisoners have said that being placed on a testing programme has helped them resist the pressures to take drugs.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to some of the measures that were announced recently, and I will not go through them again. I can tell the hon. Member for Maryhill that an independent researcher is undertaking a six-month study to obtain detailed information on the extent and type of drug and alcohol misuse among women prisoners before and after conviction. This will help to provide information to assist the targeting of resources for the future.
More funding is being made available, in addition to the extra staffing provided last year, to address the drug-related problems experienced by a large proportion of the prison population at Cornton Vale. A further addictions worker post has been approved, together with additional psychiatric sessions. Proposals from the governor to increase access to drug reduction programmes in prison and to recruit additional registered mental nurses have been approved. All of those measures will expand the programme that is in operation. Tackling drugs in prison is not the only part of the equation and, to be

effective, there must be adequate through care on release. We are discussing with local authority and voluntary agencies what steps may be taken to ensure that this is available, and such discussions are going on in Glasgow.
Any suicide is a tragedy, and although the intention behind the new clause is worthy of support, we do not believe that the proposed details are appropriate for the reason that I have given—that they involve a statutory discrimination in favour of women. That runs contrary to the principle that has informed Government policy for many years—that persons should not be discriminated against because of their sex.

Mr. McFall: This useful debate has done the House proud—particularly as the Secretary of State and the Government have been strangely silent on the issue for far too long. If the debate has assisted the process of doing something regarding the position of women prisoners in Scotland, that is all the better. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his remarks in what has been a good debate. We are unconvinced by the Government's position. There is a gaping hole in the criminal justice system regarding women which has to be rectified, and we shall press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 292.

Division No. 44]
[7.54 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ainger, Nick
Canavan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Alton, David
Church, Ms Judith


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashdown, Paddy
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashton, Joseph
Clelland, David


Austin-Walker, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Connarty, Michael


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Boateng, Paul
Dafis, Cynog


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Burden, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John


Caborn, Richard
Dewar, Donald


Callaghan, Jim
Dixon, Don


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Donohoe, Brian H






Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Kirkwood, Archy


Ennis, Jeff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Etherington, Bill
Lewis, Terry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Faulds, Andrew
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fisher, Mark
Loyden, Eddie


Flynn, Paul
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foster, Derek
McAllion, John


Foulkes, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Fraser, John
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Macdonald, Calum


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Garrett, John
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Gerrard, Neil
McMaster, Gordon


Gilbert, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Madden, Max


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Graham, Thomas
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gunnell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hain, Peter
Maxton, John


Hall, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Hardy, Peter
Michael, Alun


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hattersley, Roy
Milburn, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hood, Jimmy
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Paul


Howells, Dr Kim
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Hoyle, Doug
Oakes, Gordon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'dn N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Orme, Stanley


Ingram, Adam
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Pendry, Tom


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Rendel, David





Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rogers, Allan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rooker, Jeff
Thurnham, Peter


Rooney, Terry
Timms, Stephen


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tipping, Paddy


Rowlands, Ted
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salmond, Alex
Turner, Dennis


Sedgemore, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Walker, Sir Harold


Sheldon, Robert
Wallace, James


Shore, Peter
Walley, Ms Joan


Short, Clare
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Worthington, Tony


Steel, Sir David
Wray, Jimmy


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony


Stevenson, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Dr Gavin
Mr. Greg Pope and


Straw, Jack
Ms Angela Eagle.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Channon, Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cope, Sir John


Bates, Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Biffen, John
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Ettham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Sir Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs Angela
Emery, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butterfill, John
Evennett, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Faber, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fabricant, Michael






Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stilling)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, John


Fowler, Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Major, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Gare-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, Sir James


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Sir Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Sir Terence
Paice, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, John


Hordem, Sir Peter
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Michael
Pawsey, James


Howell, David (Guilf'd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Douglas
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Sir Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas





Speed, Sir Keith
Trend, Michael


Spencer, Sir Derek
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spink, Dr Robert
Viggers, Peter


Spring, Richard
Waldegrave, William


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Thomason, Roy
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Young, Sir George


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Sebastian Coe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE ON FURTHER CONVICTION FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'that' to 'may' in line 20 and insert
'it would be in the interest of justice to impose a sentence, other than the sentence required by subsection (2) above, it'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 148, in page 2, line 17, after 'circumstances', insert
'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.
No. 244, in clause 2, page 4, line 31, leave out from 'that' to 'may' in line 35, and insert
'it would be in the interest of justice to impose a sentence, other than the sentence required by subsection (2) above, it'.
No. 149, in page 4, line 31, after 'circumstances', insert
'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.
No. 150, in clause 3, page 5, line 30, after 'circumstances', insert
'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.

Mr. Wallace: The amendment would ensure that the element of discretion afforded to the judiciary in the two clauses relating to automatic and minimum sentences was concerned with the interests of justice rather than trying to find or establish exceptional circumstances.
I want something more akin to a presumptive than an automatic life sentence, because it is our contention that the provisions in the Bill as it stands amount to an unreasonable fettering of the judiciary. Our constitution, unwritten though it is, proceeds upon a separation of powers among the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. It has always been clear that Parliament must legislate for sentences, but the Bill seems to be moving towards putting the judiciary in a sentencing straitjacket.
It is significant that in more than one of our debates today the Minister has objected to or opposed certain moves on grounds of the need to provide the judiciary with discretion. There have been newspaper reports recently that the Secretary of State is planning to introduce training for judges, but training would not be needed if the discretionary element in sentencing were removed.
In many cases in which an automatic life sentence would follow a second offence, the courts already have power to pass life sentences if they believe that the circumstances, the seriousness of the crime or the dangerous nature of the person who committed it make that appropriate. If a court has regard to all the circumstances of a case and yet believes, despite having the opportunity to pass a life sentence, that a fixed sentence is more appropriate, it would surely amount to injustice if a more harsh sentence—a life sentence—had to be passed.
From an earlier response of the Minister's, we know that there have been relatively few appeals by the Lord Advocate against a sentence that he considered too lenient. The figures in the White Paper show that, of 1,407 people convicted between 1990 and 1994 of an offence within the categories designated in the Bill, 75 per cent. received custodial sentences. The other side of that coin is that, despite the nature of the crimes, 25 per cent. of cases were regarded by the courts, when they had been made aware of the full circumstances of the offence and of the offender, as not meriting a custodial sentence. If a life sentence may have to be imposed even in circumstances in which the courts do not believe that any custodial sentence is appropriate, that can lead only to injustice.
In many of the 75 per cent. of cases to which I referred, there would be lengthy fixed sentences and the period in prison would be followed by long periods of supervision under licence, during which the offender could be recalled. I understand the Secretary of State's argument to be that prisoners would be released only on licence if a life sentence had been imposed, and that they could be recalled at any time. If reoffending is predictable and prisoners are under supervision, why is the power of recall not used even under the present system? Even with an automatic life sentence, it is quite foreseeable that the parole board would nevertheless opt for release in circumstances in which it did not predict any reoffending, and we should be in much the same position as at present.
8.15 pm
There is a strong argument that what the Government are proposing in this exercise in machismo could weaken public protection. It could lead to an increased risk of wrongful acquittals. I will give an example of circumstances in which an acquittal might take place if an automatic life sentence loomed.
Many offences involving violence and serious violence occur within the family. That is deeply to be regretted, and it does not excuse such crimes, but the fact is that witnesses could be deterred from giving evidence if one member of the family would, on conviction, receive an automatic life sentence. Many a jury might be deterred from convicting if it believed that, in all the circumstances of the case, an automatic life sentence would be disproportionate. In many such cases, counsel

representing the accused could draw to the jury's attention the consequences of a guilty verdict, and what might appear to be a shadow of a reasonable doubt might well become a substantial reasonable doubt.
Many more cases are likely to go to trial as a result of the Bill, increasing the number of victims of crime who have to go through the trauma of giving evidence. There could also be more examples of plea bargaining. One of the crimes that will lead to an automatic life sentence on a second offence is an assault
with an intention to rape or to ravish the victim.
It is not unforeseeable that, to secure a conviction, that offence might be reduced through plea bargaining to a plea of guilty of indecent assault, with all the offence that that might cause to the victim.
The qualifying offences are full of anomalies. One is
Robbery, where at some time during the commission of the offence, the offender had in his possession a firearm or an imitation firearm.
I do not in any way seek to diminish the seriousness of such an offence, but someone who had a toy gun in the boot of a getaway car used in the commission of an offence could, if that were established, be guilty of an offence that would lead to an automatic life sentence. If, however, a combat knife had been brandished in the face the person being robbed, that would not lead to such a sentence. Such anomalies are liable to bring the law into disrepute.
The amendments also deal with drugs offences and the mandatory seven-year sentence. I have no truck with those who peddle drugs; they are some of the most evil perpetrators of crime. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), in discussing similar provisions for England and Wales, said:
For example, young drug addicts who sell small quantities of drugs to other addicts will get the same sentence as professional drug pushers."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 908.]
That is the sort of consequence that can arise and that will be regarded as unjust, not only by those who have to serve the sentences but by their families. It will bring the law into disrepute. Many small-time drug addicts will be less likely to co-operate with the police in assembling cases against major drug pushers if the consequence of co-operation is an automatic sentence of seven years or more.
The Minister may argue that the Government make some provision for flexibility by referring to "exceptional circumstances". The Lord Chief Justice south of the border has said that "exceptional" is a word that can be given a very narrow definition and suggested that psychiatric problems or threats of suicide may not be "exceptional circumstances". I doubt whether provocation would be regarded as an exceptional circumstance, but it has been relevant in some high-profile cases of murder and in England of manslaughter or in Scotland of culpable homicide where seriously abused wives have killed their partners. The fact that there have been so many such cases means that such circumstances are not exceptional, so courts will not be able to exercise discretion and ensure the justice that the public demand unless the discretion implicit in my amendment is accepted.
The Government introduced unit fines, but had to abandon them when the courts were obliged to levy fines that were disproportionate to the offences committed.


If the Bill becomes law, I predict that within months there will be a public outcry about an automatic life sentence which will be regarded as manifestly unjust.
I conclude with the words of the 1990 White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which stated:
The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework, on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional cases.
In times past, the Government recognised the strength of the arguments against what they propose in the Bill. One can only conclude that with a general election looming they would rather be seen as tough on crime than as having a proper regard for the best interests of a civilised and just criminal justice system.

Mr. McFall: I commend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his eloquence and agree with much of what he said. We raised these issues in detail with the Minister in Committee.
On "exceptional circumstances", I refer the Minister to the debate in Committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, when the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said:
The words 'exceptional circumstances' will present an immediate and fundamental problem for the courts. We cannot foresee the problems that many phrases will cause. Had we foreseen problems with some phrases, we would have acted at the appropriate time. However, we can clearly foresee a problem with the phrase 'exceptional circumstances'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 November 1996; c. 22.]
We pressed the Minister on that point in Committee, but he said that he did not wish to limit judicial discretion. He made that comment immediately after limiting the judicial discretion with mandatory sentences. The problem of "exceptional circumstances" remains to be cleared up. It is not enough for the Government to say that it is up to the judge to decide what are exceptional circumstances if they are not laid out in the Bill. The Government say that it is a matter for judicial discretion, but if that is so, why was judicial discretion taken away in the first instance?
In Committee the Minister said that he did not want to define "exceptional circumstances" because it would limit judges' discretion. However, this aroused concern even among Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who asked whether "exceptional circumstances" applied to the prior qualifying offence or only to the offence under consideration.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) suggested that judges would be loth to define "exceptional circumstances" because they would be open to the right of appeal and their decisions might be challenged on appeal. There was much concern about that problem, not least from the Law Society of Scotland. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain the Government's thinking on "exceptional circumstances". For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are reluctant to elaborate.
The Pepper v. Hart case in 1992 meant that courts and others outside Parliament could refer to our debates to understand the intention of legislation. It is important to make the intention clear. I ask the Minister to address that and to ensure that he gives a satisfactory response;

otherwise, judges will keep to the status quo and make no comment. The Government's aim in the Bill will thus not be realised, and I trust that he does not want that.

Lord James Douglas—Hamilton: In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I believe that the number of appeals made by Law Officers against too lenient sentences is in the region of 15.
Amendments Nos. 243 and 244 concern the circumstances in which courts may exercise their discretion not to impose an automatic life sentence or a minimum of seven years imprisonment for a third or subsequent conviction for class A drug trafficking offences. The amendments would seriously undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the public from violent or serious sex offenders and recidivist drug dealers. They would replace the "exceptional circumstances" test in relation to the court's discretion not to impose an automatic life or minimum mandatory sentence with a different and much wider test. The exceptional circumstances test would allow the courts to impose a different sentence only where unusual circumstances exist.
The purpose of clauses 1 and 2 is that life sentences or custodial sentences of seven years or more should be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of the cases; otherwise, they will not have the desired protective and deterrent effect. The tests proposed in the amendments go far beyond that by, for example, allowing the courts to impose a different sentence if they think that it would be anomalous to impose a minimum sentence. They might allow a judge not to impose a minimum sentence in a case in which he would otherwise have been minded to impose a different penalty. That would make nonsense of clauses 1 and 2.
Clause 1 deals with criminals who have already been convicted of serious offences such as rape, or of robbery with a firearm, but go on to commit a further such offence. Such criminals have shown by the nature of their offences and by their inability to desist that they are a threat to public safety. Only automatic life sentences can deal satisfactorily with the risks that they pose to society.
Clause 2 deals with drug dealers convicted of a third or further class A drug trafficking offence. We believe that not to impose a severe determinate sentence on such persons would not provide the protection that the wider community deserves from such people.

Mr. Wallace: If I follow the Minister's argument, will he say whether he thinks that I am offering a fair summation of it? Judges have immense experience and are paid substantial salaries to exercise their judicial discretion. As a result of the Government's proposals, they may have to impose sentences that are harsher than they believe to be necessary in the circumstances. Does the Minister believe that that is justice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that the public deserve the additional protections that automatic life sentences would give in the case of repeat offenders. That would be particularly relevant in cases such as that of Maguire, who would have been caught by an automatic life sentence the second time he offended.

Mr. McFall: I should like to add to the question just posed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about


judicial discretion. The Minister has cited the exercise of such discretion in exceptional circumstances, but has not allowed for it in the case of mandatory sentences. Is he saying that he does not trust judges and that there have been problems in the past as a result of their decisions?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not saying that. We believe that the clauses should necessarily provide a discretion for a different sentences to be imposed when there are exceptional circumstances. I am content to leave that discretion to the courts. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland could argue eloquently in court if he believed that exceptional circumstances existed. In my view, the right balance has been struck and to go further would undermine the effectiveness of clauses 1 and 2.
By singling out particular circumstances, we do not wish to fetter the courts' discretion to decide what are exceptional circumstances and how they should be weighed. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister's reply comes as no real surprise to me, as we are all aware that the Government are going through a window-dressing exercise in trying to appear tough on crime. I do not believe that the proposals will have the effect in practice that the Minister pleads for them.
I have already said that, if a prisoner who has been released on licence under supervision ought to be recalled, then he should be recalled. Equally, if there is an omission to recall him on the basis that he is likely to reoffend, it is equally likely that he will be released by the Parole Board with the consent of the Secretary of State and then reoffend. I do not believe that the Government's proposals would provide the type of safety for the public that the Minister says that they will deliver.
The Minister has completely overlooked the fact that discretion is already exercised by judges to impose a life sentence where they think that there is a strong likelihood that a person will reoffend due to his dangerous proclivities. The Minister has outlined circumstances in which judges and the courts will be obliged to mete out sentences harsher than those that judges' long judicial experience lead them to believe it would be in the interests of justice to deliver.
The Bill may give the Government a few cheap headlines in the weeks running up to the election, but I fear that the consequences in the medium term—and possibly in the short term—will be a series of high-profile cases which will show that what has been done by the Government is ludicrous. Sentences will be imposed that bear no proportion to the crime committed. That will bring our criminal law into disrepute and will undermine the thrust to tackle crime. I therefore insist on pressing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 278.

Division No. 45]
[8.33 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dafis, Cynog


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Mrs Margaret





Harvey, Nick
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Steel, Sir David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thumham, Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Tyler, Paul


Maclennan, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Maddock, Mrs Diana



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rendel, David
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. James Wallace.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dicks, Terry


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bates, Michael
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Faber, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fabricant, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Sir Norman


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
French, Douglas


Bright, Sir Graham
Fry, Sir Peter


Brooke, Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, John


Cash, William
Hague, William


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clappison, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hannam, Sir John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Congdon, David
Hawksley, Warren


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Sir John
Hendry, Charles


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heseltine, Michael


Couchman, James
Hicks, Sir Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Higgins, Sir Terence


Curry, David
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Horam, John


Day, Stephen
Hordern, Sir Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howard, Michael






Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Ryder, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Jopling, Michael



Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


King, Tom
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Sir Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)



Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Sir John


MacGregor, John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stem, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, David
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Patten, John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Wilshire, David


Porter, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Redwood, John
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Tim
Young, Sir George



Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Roger Knapman and



Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 2, line 17, after 'circumstances', insert
'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.— [Mr. McFall]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 280.

Division No. 46]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hall, Mike


Ainger, Nick
Hanson, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Paddy
Hattersley, Roy


Ashton, Joseph
Heppell, John


Barnes, Harry
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Bayley, Hugh
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Benn, Tony
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Bennett, Andrew F
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Illsley, Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ingram, Adam


Burden, Richard
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Byers, Stephen
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Canavan, Dennis
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Loyden, Eddie


Coffey, Ms Ann
Lynne, Ms Liz


Connarty, Michael
McAllion, John


Corston, Ms Jean
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
McFall, John


Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dafis, Cynog
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Davidson, Ian
Madden, Max


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Marek, Dr John


Denham, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Morley, Elliot


Eagle, Ms Angela
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Ennis, Jeff
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Flynn, Paul
O'Hara, Edward


Foster, Derek
Olner, Bill


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Pearson, Ian


Gilbert, Dr John
Pickthall, Colin


Godman, Dr Norman A
Pike, Peter L


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pope, Greg


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Graham, Thomas
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rendel, David


Gunnell, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara






Rooney, Terry
Thurnham, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Salmond, Alex
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Trickett, Jon


Shore, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Vaz, Keith


Soley, Clive
Wallace, James


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Andrew


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steel, Sir David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Strang, Dr Gavin



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taytor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. George Mudie.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Curry, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Atkins, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Biffen, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Peter
Fowler, Sir Norman


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Sir Peter


Butler, Peter
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodlad, Alastair


Channon, Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Gummer, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hague, William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Sir John
Hawksley, Warren





Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hicks, Sir Robert
Patten, John


Higgins, Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordem, Sir Peter
Porter, David


Howard, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Hurd, Douglas
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Jopling, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


King, Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Sir John


MacGregor, John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stem, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Molyneaux, Sir James
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, William


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Needham, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nelson, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Wheeler, Sir John






Whitney, Sir Raymond
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Wood, Timothy


Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)
Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 13, at end insert—
'3A. Clandestine injury to women or an attempt to cause such injury.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 125 and 3.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 1 fulfils a Government undertaking given in Committee to accept in principle an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), which sought to add "clandestine injury" to the list of offences that could on conviction lead to an automatic life sentence. It differs from that amendment only by giving the offence its full name and by providing for the inclusion in the list of convictions for an attempt to commit the offence as well as for the offence itself. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 1
Amendment No. 125 is a response to comments made by Opposition Members in Committee, but in this case in relation to the list of offences contained in what is now clause 44. Amendment No. 125 would remove the words "towards a child" from the description of lewd and libidinous practices, and is paralleled by Government amendment 94.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for listening to the views of Opposition Members in Committee and tabling the amendment. It is important that the crime of clandestine injury is included. Similarly, I thank the Minister for listening to our views on the definition of offences perpetrated against children. The Opposition are content with the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 125, in page 3, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
'8. Lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour or practices.' .— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 2

MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR THIRD CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES RELATING TO DRUG TRAFFICKING

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 4, line 6, leave out 'this section' and insert
'section 2 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 92, 228 to 231, 256, 42, 43, 235, 257, 258, 98, 104, 236, 237, 83 to 85, 87, 100, 101, 88 and 89.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are minor technical and drafting amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 92, in page 4, line 14, leave out 'this section' and insert
'section 2 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 15, at end insert—
'(2) In section 196 of the 1995 Act (sentence following guilty plea)—

(a) the existing words shall become subsection (1); and
(b) at the end there shall be added the following subsection—

(2) Where the court is passing sentence on an offender under section 205B(2) of this Act and that offender has pled guilty to the offence for which he is being so sentenced, the court may, after taking into account the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above, pass a sentence of less than seven years imprisonment or, as the case may be, detention but any such sentence shall not be of a term of imprisonment or period of detention of less than five years, two hundred and nineteen days.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 255 and 32.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 2, 31 and 32 deal with the ability of the court to take into account a plea of guilty, and the stage in proceedings and circumstances in which it is made, in determining what sentence to pass under clauses 1 and 2.
What is now section 196 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes it clear that the court is able to take into account a plea of guilty in determining what sentence to pass on, or other disposal or order to make in relation to an offender. That operates as a disincentive to postponing a guilty plea until the day of the trial, to the great inconvenience of witnesses, police and jurors. It also acknowledges the possibility that a guilty plea may be regarded as a mitigating factor in sentencing, because it may imply an acceptance of responsibility and contrition on the part of the offender and may spare the victim and other witnesses from having to give evidence.
On further consideration, it appears that the provisions of section 196 of the 1995 Act may not apply to sentences imposed under clauses 1 and 2 as drafted. Although those clauses provide for automatic life and mandatory minimum sentences, there is no reason in our view why the court should not be able to take into account a guilty plea where those sentences would apply on conviction. The amendments would ensure that that is possible.

9 pm

Dr. Godman: The Minister spoke of contrition and how that may assist the courts. I have no doubt about that. However, what about a case involving severe sexual assault? I hope that no leniency would be shown in such a case, no matter when the accused agreed to plead guilty.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. It is important to spare the victim the trauma of having to go through a case and have every sort of falsehood thrown at her. She may dissolve in tears—I have seen it happen. We are saying that, if the accused shows contrition by pleading guilty at an early stage and therefore does not put the victim


through the process of having to put up with a great deal of abuse and falsehood in court, that is a factor that the court legitimately should be entitled to take into account.

Mr. Wallace: What consideration have the Minister and his colleagues given to the opinion of the recently retired Lord Justice-Clerk Ross, in the case of Strawhorn and McLeod, about inducements to plead guilty at an early stage?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not describe the measure as an inducement to plead guilty. I believe that it could be taken into account as a mitigating factor-which is rather different-if the accused faced up to his responsibility and, instead of making false accusations against a victim, did not put her through that trauma. A court should be entitled to take that into account. As I said, section 196 of the 1995 Act makes it clear that the court is able to take into account a plea of guilty in determining the appropriate sentence. After all, if a person who has committed a very serious crime tells a pack of lies, that is a different situation from that of a person who admits his transgressions and shows some contrition.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

IMPOSITION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE ORDERS ON CONVICTION OF QUALIFYING OFFENCE

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 5, line 43, after 'paragraphs 3,' insert '3A,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 10, leave out 'one sixth' and insert 'one quarter'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 238 and 240.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 4 will increase the maximum period of supervision that courts may impose for offenders released from prison to the greater of two years or one quarter of the sentence. That corresponds to a similar amendment incorporated in the Crime (Sentences) Bill in respect of offenders in England and Wales. It is in response to concerns expressed by both sides of the House that the limit of one sixth presently contained in the Bill may not be sufficient to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the public.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY ORDERS

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 6, line 17, leave out '245' and insert '229'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 166, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
No. 138, in page 6, line 20, leave out '245A' and insert '229A'.
Government amendment No. 105.
No. 136, in page 6, line 23, after 'an', insert
'additional requirement of a probation'.
No. 167, in page 6, line 23, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 168, in page 6, line 25, leave our 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 139, in page 6, line 26, leave out '245B to 245F' and insert '229B and 229C'.
No. 169, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 170, in page 6, line 29, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 171, in page 6, line 43, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 128, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 13.
No. 172, in page 7, line 1, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 173, in page 7, line 3, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 174, in page 7, line 3, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
No. 175, in page 7, line 4, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 176, in page 7, line 7, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
No. 177, in page 7, line 8, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 178, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 179, in page 7, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 180, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 129, in page 7, line 15, after 'shall', insert
'in addition to section 228 (6)(a) above'.
No. 181, in page 7, line 16, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 182, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 183, in page 7, line 19, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 184, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 185, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 130, in page 7, leave out lines 33 to 47.
Government amendment No. 109.
No. 186, in page 7, line 34, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
Government amendment No. 110.
No. 187, in page 7, line 36, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 189, in page 7, line 41, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
No. 190, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
No. 191, in page 7, line 44, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 131, in page 8, line 6, leave out '245B' and insert '229B'.
No. 162, in page 8, line 7, leave out '245A(9)' and insert '229A(9).'.
No. 192, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
No. 193, in page 8, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 194, in page 8, line 13, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 195, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 196, in page 8, line 18, leave out
'order shall vary the order'
and insert
'requirement shall vary the requirement'.
No. 163, in page 8, line 20, leave out '245C' and insert '229C'.
No. 197, in page 8, line 24, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
No. 198, in page 8, line 27, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 199, in page 8, line 28, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 200, in page 8, line 32, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 201, in page 8, line 36, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
Government amendment No. 223.
No. 164, in page 8, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 on page 9.
No. 202, in page 8, line 40, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 203, in page 8, line 42, leave out
'order may apply to the court which made the order'
and insert
'requirement may apply to the court which made the requirement'.
No. 204, in page 8, line 46, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 205, in page 8, line 48, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 206, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 207, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'order' at both occurrences and insert 'requirement'.
No. 208, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
No. 209, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 210, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
No. 211, in page 9, line 14, leave out

'order the court may vary the order'
and insert
'requirement the court may vary the requirement'.
No. 212, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'order' and insert'requiremene.
No. 213, in page 9, line 18, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 214, in page 9, line 21, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 215, in page 9, line 22, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
Government amendment No. 115.
No. 216, in page 9, line 32, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
No. 217, in page 9, line 33, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
Government amendment No. 119.
No. 218, in schedule 1, page 71, line 32, at end insert—
'(17A) In section 232(3) insert 'a' after '(3)' and insert after subparagraph (a) a new sub-paragraph as follows—
(b) notwithstanding (a) above, in relation to a probation order with an additional restriction of liberty requirement—

(i) evidence of the presence or absence of the offender at a particular place at a particular time may, subject to the provisions of this section, be given by the production of a document or documents bearing to be—

(a) a statement automatically produced by a device specified in regulations made under section 229C of this Act, by which the offender's whereabouts were remotely monitored; and
(b) a certificate signed by the person responsible for monitoring the order that the statement relates to the whereabouts of the person subject to the order at the dates and times shown in the statement;

(ii) the statement and certificate mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above shall, when produced at a hearing, be sufficient evidence of the facts set out in them;
(iii) neither the statement nor the certificate mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above shall be admissible in evidence unless a copy of both has been served on the offender prior to the hearing and, without prejudice to the foregoing, where it appears to the court that the offender has had insufficient notice of the statement or certificate, it may adjourn a hearing or make any order which it thinks appropriate in the circumstances.".'.

No. 219, in schedule 1, page 71, line 45, at end insert—
'(21A) In Schedule 6 (discharge of and amendment to probation orders) there shall be inserted after sub-paragraph 3(2) (c) a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
(d) so that the probationer is thereby subject to a restriction of liberty requirement for any period or periods exceeding 12 months in all.".'.

Mr. McFall: We want restriction of liberty orders not to stand alone but to be part of the probation and supervision process, together with social inquiry reports. That will enable us to focus on the right people.
The research to date shows that such targeting is essential. As it stands, it is not clear from the Bill whom the provision is directed at, and whether it is to apply in solemn, summary or district courts. Experience world-wide with tagging is varied. Sweden has used it perhaps the most successfully. The Swedish experience shows that success is more likely if tagging is used for a


very short period; if it is part of a treatment programme; and if the person concerned enjoys a stable environment and has the will to go along with the tagging.
Amendment No. 136 would allow the High Court, the sheriff court and the district court to make restriction of liberty orders in a wide variety of circumstances. There is currently no guidance on which offenders or offences should be the target of such orders. The Bill merely states that they should be used when the court deems them the most appropriate method of disposal.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State frequently reiterated their intentions. Such orders are best used when the alternative would be a short period of custody. In Committee, we pressed the Minister on that; if tagging is to be used, then it should be used as an alternative to custody when the judge or sheriff states that someone who would otherwise be given a gaol sentence may be given a tagging order instead—we want the orders restricted to that.
As I said, the Bill gives no guidance to the judiciary or to sheriffs. We therefore conclude that it is untargeted and that it will cause confusion about the purpose of the disposal. Moreover, the Bill contradicts the Government's attempts to achieve greater consistency in sentencing. Linking a restriction of liberty order with a probation order will ensure a proper assessment by means of a mandatory social inquiry report. That will facilitate the targeting of the disposal, in the interests of the community, the offender and the offender's family, in such a way as to advance the prospects of successful compliance.
Research in the United States and Sweden has shown that electronic monitoring is most likely to succeed when it is attached to a programme of probation or supervision. In that way, surveillance is supported by constructive intervention designed to reduce offending behaviour. Electronic monitoring by itself would preclude the regular personal supervision that could deal with offending behaviour. Public safety—the theme of all our amendments and new clauses—will be enhanced by the dual approval of monitoring and direct supervision.
Linking restriction of liberty with probation ensures public and democratic accountability. The supervising officer will be accountable to the local authority as well as to the court and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. In that way, the disposal will be free of commercial considerations.
I wonder how much notice the Secretary of State has taken of the international experience of tagging, which is used in New Zealand, Singapore and other places that I mentioned earlier. Of the pilot schemes operated in Sweden, the Netherlands, America and Western Australia, the Swedish experiment seems to be the most successful. It combines electronic monitoring with intensive supervision and was initially operated in six probation districts. Offenders sentenced to up to two months in prison are allowed to apply to serve their sentence in the community under intensive supervision and with electronic monitoring. They must be of fixed abode, have a telephone, and be in employment or education.
Between 1 August 1994 and 31 July 1995, 637 offenders were eligible under those criteria and nearly 70 per cent. of them applied for the project. A total of 396 applications were approved; 50 per cent. were drink drivers; 20 per cent. were violent offenders, often

committing drink and drug-related offences; and 30 per cent. were convicted of other offences, including theft and refusing to do military service. By the end of the period, 311 people had completed their supervision satisfactorily; 23 offenders had had their supervision terminated by reason of misconduct; and 62 were still under suspension.
The Swedish scheme is considered to be a moderate success and has been expanded to include anyone serving three months anywhere in the country, although the maximum tagged period is expected to be four months. However, the level of technical faults was much higher than expected and the issue of false violations has still not been resolved.
Experience is much more plentiful in America, where about 600 schemes operate. Although I hold the Minister to his remark in Committee that this will be a pilot scheme, lessons could be learned from the American experience, about which a six-year study has been made. It suggests that one main reason for failure was lack of staff resources in the probation service. Even one of the manufacturers was reported to have said:
reliable equipment alone will not ensure a successful programme".
He asserted:
The involvement of professional social workers is key.
The success of the schemes that have been running was said to involve the following components: first, clear, well-defined objectives for using the system; secondly, strong involvement and support from the probation and parole service; thirdly, careful screening of the participants using well-defined selection criteria; fourthly, the provision of support programmes; fifthly, strong Government commitment; and, sixthly, reliable equipment. Neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State commented on any of those issues on Second Reading or in Committee. If the Government are to go ahead with such a scheme, it is important that those objectives are laid out, and this is where they should be debated.
There seems to be some evidence about the likely criteria for success. That is important when it comes to targeting the type of individuals whom the Government would like to see on an electronic tagging programme. Offenders must have a settled address with a telephone installed. They should be employed. Tags should not be used for any offender with a history of violence in the household, and tagging works best for offenders
who already have some internal control and just need an extra nudge".
Those criteria are supported by the Swedish findings, where three criteria for success emerged. Tagging works only if it is for a very short period, the offenders are well motivated and in stable life situations, and tagging is part of a treatment programme.
I hope that the Minister of State will address his remarks to those findings. If he tells us that the measure is being introduced in the dying weeks of a Parliament just for the sake of introducing it, that is not good enough. The measure must be shown to have merit.
The Secretary of State turns his nose up. No information has been forthcoming from the Government about the target population, what they hope to achieve, who will be involved and what resources will be made available to the service—the building blocks fundamental to the success of the programme.
The Opposition tabled amendments in Committee to ensure that there would be a supervisory element and a probationary aspect to the programme. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition's amendments Nos. 128 to 131, 136 and 137, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke, and the other amendments would unhelpfully limit the use of electronically monitored restriction of liberty requirements, so that in Scotland such an order could be made only as a condition of a probation order.
Our proposals would allow a court to deal with an offender by making a restriction of liberty order alone, or by making a restriction of liberty order together with a probation order. The Opposition amendments would withdraw the first of those options. As a consequence, a court would not be able to make a free-standing restriction of liberty order, even if it considered that to be the most appropriate option. That would be hard to justify, and I would not recommend accepting those amendments to clause 4.
I shall deal now with the Government amendments in the group. As was said in Committee, in some cases the effectiveness of electronically monitored disposals may be enhanced if they are associated with the sort of supervision offered by probation. On that basis, the Bill provides for a facility which enables a probation order to be associated with a restriction of liberty order. Government amendments clarify how that facility will operate.

Mr. Davidson: The amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are useful, as they strike at the centre of the Government's proposal by probing the way in which the Government intend to use restriction of liberty orders.
The Minister's response to my hon. Friend's excellent argument suggested that orders made without probation will be a cheap way of dealing with someone who should be punished by being sent to prison. In those circumstances, a restriction of liberty order without supervision misses the point.
I recognise that the clause goes beyond the idea of electronic tagging. Under subsection (2)(b), for example, a person could be instructed not to attend football matches, if he had been convicted of an offence arising from his attendance at such a match. Clearly, electronic tagging would not be suitable in those circumstances. That person should not simply be left and trusted not to go to matches. Provision should be made for some form of probation or supervision, to ensure that the restriction is not seen as a soft option. There is genuine anxiety that, if restriction of liberty orders are unpoliced, they will be seen as a soft option.
Does the Minister accept my hon. Friend's contention, arising from practice elsewhere, that success is likely where the restriction is for a short period, and where the person concerned is well motivated? Other evidence suggests that restriction of liberty works best if the person is in a job and if the restriction is part of a comprehensive treatment programme. The order seems tailor-made for

many middle-class people. Is it intended to distribute restriction of liberty orders evenly throughout the population, or will certain social criteria be taken into consideration?
We have already discussed the increasing number of women who experience serious difficulties in prison. I think that restriction of liberty orders may represent a reasonable alternative to imprisonment in some circumstances, depending on the nature of the offence. People would require a degree of supervision—perhaps they should have some form of probation—but the Minister did not touch upon that aspect. I ask him to clarify those points in his response.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) supports restriction of liberty orders—as he has done more than once before. I make it clear that we are particularly guided by the experience of the pilot scheme in England, which has proved a success. The technology is seen to be reliable and it has worked effectively. The courts have made extensive use of the option and we can see no case for denying it to Scottish courts. Of course, there will be a pilot scheme and, depending on how it works, the option could be extended more widely thereafter.
The Opposition amendments would make a restriction of liberty requirement a condition of a probation order instead of a discrete disposal. While I do not object to considering that approach in the longer term, it raises some practical issues that must be resolved beforehand. I shall examine them quickly.
First, an issue arises because responsibility for supervising a probation order rests with a local authority officer while responsibility for the electronic monitoring of any restriction of liberty condition would rest with a person nominated by the Secretary of State. Therefore, in fulfilling his duty to supervise a probation order, the local authority officer would have to rely on someone over whom he had little direct control to monitor one of its conditions.

Mr. McFall: Could not the Secretary of State nominate a local authority officer?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We would first have to assess and evaluate the success of the pilot scheme—which is what we intend to do. My second point is that evaluation will be extremely difficult. It may be difficult to ascertain whether any shortcomings are due to electronically monitored requirements or to the general order. I believe that it is necessary to proceed as I have recommended.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: No. 105, in page 6, line 20, after '(1)' insert
'Without prejudice to section 245CC of this Act,'.—[Mr. Carrington.]
Amendment proposed: No. 245, in page 6, line 20, leave out
'of 16 years of age or more'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 246 to 250, 252 and 253.

Mr. Wallace: I shall resume my seat if I have the wrong amendment. Amendment No. 245 would delete the


reference to persons of 16 years and over, which would have the effect of extending the tagging provisions to those aged under 16. I find it absolutely extraordinary that a measure that has received considerable publicity and marks an important departure in the treatment of juveniles in Scotland should be moved formally by the Minister without any attempt to justify the measure to the House. It is quite extraordinary behaviour from the Minister.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I shall happily explain exactly what it means and then he may resume his speech.

Mr. Wallace: I rather suspect that you would rule that out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the intervention would be too long. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Minister has moved a major amendment formally.
I shall explain briefly why my party opposes the measure. As I understand it, the option of tagging children under 16 will be available only to the courts. The Minister assured the Committee that the electronic tagging exercise would be run as a pilot scheme, but at the same time as running a pilot scheme, he is trying to extend its provision.
More seriously, in Scotland we have a distinctive scheme of juvenile justice, in which the overwhelming number of young offenders are referred to a children's hearing. Only a handful of those under 16—no doubt the Minister will be able to give us the figure—have been referred to the criminal courts in recent years. I have strong doubts that electronic tagging is an appropriate disposal for those whose offences are such that it is thought right to determine them in the criminal courts rather than the children's hearing system.
We are embarking on a costly scheme for children under 16 when a pilot scheme is still in operation. I suspect that it is being implemented where it is most inappropriate, and the Minister has not given any explanation. We look forward to hearing one.
That is the pattern of so much of the Bill—it has been done to give the Secretary of State a cheap headline. It sounds as though he is tough, but in this case he has misread the situation and is trying to introduce electronic tagging in cases for which it is wholly inappropriate. I look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister tries to justify the proposals, when he finally gets round to doing so. He will need a good argument to persuade us that the proposals are appropriate and amount to anything more than an exercise in window dressing.

Mrs. Fyfe: I agree whole-heartedly with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Government amendment No. 247 says:
the court shall obtain and consider information about that offender's family circumstances
before making a restriction of liberty order. Would that include finding out whether the offender had younger siblings who were likely to admire the older brother or sister for having such an imposition placed on them and might look up to them as a hero because of that mark of distinction? I wonder whether such information on an offender's family circumstances might include the attitude of his schoolfellows. The same problems might apply to them.
As has been said already, the measure has attracted widespread publicity. Senior police officers have said that they find it wholly objectionable and impractical and that being tagged could result in some young ne'er-do-weels having more street cred. It is remarkable that the Minister should move the amendment formally without any word of explanation.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady and I, together with the Minister, sat on a Committee considering the Children (Scotland) Bill two years ago. The Committee took evidence and sat for many weeks considering appropriate measures for young children. Does the hon. Lady recall—I certainly do not—any suggestion by the Government that such a measure was appropriate or necessary?

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, and he is correct. At no time was it suggested that this was an appropriate course of action for under-16 offenders. The Committee was united in welcoming the fact that the hearing system had worked so effectively over the years and, as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, few cases involving under-16s were considered serious enough to be dealt with in a court. The relevance of the amendment is highly questionable.
With such widespread critical comment on the proposals, including from the police, why is the Minister pursuing the amendment? In particular, given that we have agreed that a pilot scheme should go ahead in relation to adult offenders, what is the purpose of opposing such a scheme for under-16s? Are the Government waiting to see the outcome of the other scheme?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the objections of the police to extension of the scheme to children's panels. We listened to the responses, and we are not doing that. We believe that electronically monitored disposals will provide a useful means of dealing with offenders. The Bill currently limits the use of such disposals to offenders aged at least 16. We considered that we should also examine the potential in relation to younger offenders.
In November, we issued a consultation paper seeking views on that, specifically in the context of our children's hearing system. The consultation period ended on 4 January, with most respondents expressing reservations about the use of electronic monitoring by children's hearings. Various reasons were given. It was suggested that such a disposal would be out of keeping with the ethos of the hearing system, for example, and that it should be piloted with adult offenders in the criminal justice system first. We took account of the views, and of the fact that, even if given the power, hearings would probably make little use of it until its value had been proven in the criminal justice system. We therefore concluded that the Bill should not make electronically monitored disposals available to children's hearings.

Mr. Dalyell: I feel that it behoves those of us who did not serve on the Committee to be a bit reticent at this stage of the Bill's passage, but may I ask what advice the Government are receiving from the police?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the police were reserved about the extension of the power


to children's panels. The responses were overwhelmingly opposed to it, and we listened to those responses. It has been suggested—by, for instance, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—that relatively few people under 16 would come before the courts, and, in fact, that is so. In 1994, only 171 young offenders had a charge proved against them in court. Nevertheless, in some such cases, the courts might consider an electronically monitored restriction of liberty order—perhaps in conjunction with a probation order—to be an appropriate disposal, for example in the case of a football hooligan or a persistent shoplifter.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister tell us in a little more detail the exact nature of most of the cases that were taken to a juvenile court rather than a children's panel? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made a good point: he said that it seemed to him that any case that was referred to a court rather than a children's panel was likely to involve an offence to which a restriction of liberty order would not be appropriate.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is not necessarily so. The cases that go before the court are the more serious—

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me finish. I have not had a chance to answer the question.
It may well be that, for a football hooligan, a person who has committed an assault in certain circumstances or a persistent shoplifter, a restriction of liberty order, coupled with a probation order, might be more appropriate than prison. We consider that that option should be available. We think that a pilot scheme is the correct way to proceed, and that such a scheme should be properly evaluated and assessed in due course.

Mr. McFall: rose—

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Ms Cunningham: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I give way to the hon. Member for Dumbarton.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister.
The Minister referred to the 171 children under 16 against whom a charge had been proved. He knows that 25 of those were detained, and that 46 cases were admitted to children's hearings. The penalty in most of the remaining 100 cases was split between probation, in 32 cases; financial penalties, in 30 cases; and caution and admonition, in 32 cases. Only a small number of young people—25—went to court. Does the Minister agree that those would be very serious offenders, and that tagging would therefore be inappropriate? I am perplexed about why the Government introduced such a measure, and the statistics make their case even weaker.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I merely suggest that the option should be available to the courts. I cannot

conceive of all the circumstances that will arise, but it is a useful option. The hon. Member for Dumbarton said that young persons should not be sent to prison for fine default, for example, but should have the option to serve non-custodial sentences in the community.

Ms Cunningham: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must proceed and spell out our intentions.
We have decided that courts should be able to use restriction of liberty orders for young offenders whom they sentence. Although that group of people may be small in number, they are often guilty of particularly serious offences that seriously disrupt the lives of people in their communities. I accept that, in some cases, their offences will definitely warrant a custodial sentence. In other cases, it may be preferable to confine them to their homes and to use electronic monitoring to ensure that they stay there.
If a young offender is confined to his home, and that confinement is monitored rigorously by electronic means, he cannot be out on the streets disrupting the community by serious acts of violence or dishonesty. It may also help the young offender to break free from the malevolent influence of older offenders with whom he has been mixing.
Some Opposition parties are not enthusiastic about the use of electronic monitoring, especially for young offenders: objections to it have been made throughout the passage of the Bill. Indeed, the Opposition objected on Second Reading, and their objections lay at the heart of the reasoned amendment that would have killed the Bill stone dead. We do not want to deny the courts the option of tagging when dealing with young offenders who commit serious and disruptive crimes. Such a disposal could provide a measure of protection to the public, enabling the offender to address the offending behaviour without having to resort to a custodial disposal. We believe that that would be a useful option in some cases, and I commend the Government's amendments to the House.

Ms Cunningham: I was trying to intervene on the Minister to ask him to tell us how many of the 171 young offenders to whom he referred will be affected by the proposal. If only 25 of that 171 end up in court, how many of that 25 will be affected? Are we talking about two or three individuals next year? Is that what it is all about? The people of Scotland have a right to know that the Government, while supposedly making some wonderful gesture for the future of criminal justice, are in reality introducing a proposal that will affect only two or three of that 25. I want a direct response to my question.
It is interesting that the Government have introduced the Bill supposedly in response to a consultation process. The proposal has met with widespread opposition from children's agencies, local authorities and the police, but the Minister has not mentioned that. The Scottish Child Law Centre considers that one of the main problems of the scheme is that it is not based on an understanding of children's offending behaviour. A spokesperson for the centre said:
Children's offending can often be linked to difficult circumstances at home, possibly even involving abuse… Giving parents a key role in enforcing compliance with the scheme may be


tying the child to an abusive relationship which could be the whole reason behind the offending.
We must deal with that issue.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Lady has raised an important point. Not a minute ago, the Minister said that tagging could ensure that the child stayed at home, which is precisely where abuse, if there is any, is likely to take place.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Lady is right. The child's home may be the problem, but the Minister does not address that issue. Branding children in that way may make it much more difficult for them to change and to learn from their mistakes.
I should like to hear the Minister address the issues that have been raised by the police. I understand that they expressed concern that, obversely, the tags may be a status symbol for some children and will have the opposite effect to the one claimed by the Minister. Did the police say that? If the potential for encouraging disruptive behaviour presented by such a status symbol is enough for the police to express concern, why are the Government pressing on with the measure?
In Committee, the Minister said that there must be consultation about young persons and added that he had nothing further to say other than that he would assess the responses. From what he has said in today's debate, instead of assessing the responses, he has ignored them, and that is not a responsible way for the Government to behave. I hope that the Minister will deal directly with the issues and give direct answers to questions.

Mr. Davidson: The Minister asks the House to support the amendment, but, given the nature of past discussions, we are entitled to ask for clarification of the offences that he thinks might be suitable for disposal by tagging. I am no clearer than when the Minister opened the debate what offences he has in mind and how many young people he envisages under the existing pattern of offending will be affected by such a method of disposal.
I was interested in what the Minister said about youngsters who disrupt life in their communities. I can understand why he thinks that tagging, presumably along the lines of some sort of curfew order, might be appropriate. If that is what he has in mind, he should spell out the procedure by which it would be deemed suitable for a youngster to be placed under such a curfew order in one area rather than another. Perhaps such curfew orders are not the sort of procedure to which the Minister thinks tagging orders might apply.
The Government seek cheap headlines by wanting to be seen to be tough on crime by young people, but they are not dealing seriously with the problems that are faced by young people, or with the scale of the difficulties. In my area, a number of young people engage in repeated acts of burglary. They break and enter garden sheds, destroy gardens and break greenhouses and so on. I am not sure how the possibility of a tagging order would deter or prevent someone from destroying greenhouses or breaking into houses.
How would it work in practice? Many burglaries take place at night or during the day when youngsters have absconded from school. Would such offences be the subject of a tagging order? If not, what sort of offences would be involved?
Some youngsters in my area have repeatedly caused damage costing enormous sums by simply going along the side of a school and smashing every window in sight. They similarly destroy the windows in community centres. The Secretary of State nods. He obviously understands the situation. How would the introduction of tagging affect offenders of that sort?
The police spent a great deal of time trying to catch some youngsters in my area. They were eventually caught and taken to an institution, from which they repeatedly absconded because it was not secure. There were not enough places in secure establishments for those youngsters to be detained. The Government have not proposed an increase in spending on secure units for young people, but are instead going for the cheap gimmick of tagging rather than seriously addressing the difficulties. Considerable police time is wasted chasing youngsters who abscond from non-secure establishments, and it greatly undermines the credibility of the police and the system in general when youngsters are seen to be back out on the street a short time after they have been disposed of by the court.

Mrs. Fyfe: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Government amendment No. 246 sets time limits on the tagging? Those time limits may be a response to the critical comments that have been heard on the subject in the past few months. But if they are imposed—regardless of whether there has been any change for the better in the behaviour of the young person—the whole system will have been brought into total disrepute, as any punitive system, whether in schools or elsewhere, must be aimed at changing behaviour.

Mr. Davidson: That excellent point is well made by my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. All the evidence we have heard of on how tagging dealt with adults elsewhere suggested that the period of tagging should be short, that the people involved should be well motivated, and that tagging should be part of a comprehensive pattern of treatment.
The difficulty with many of the youngsters to whom we are referring is that they are extremely badly motivated and anti-social. I am not convinced that tagging will work with the worst of youngsters—if I can use that term—who will have been before the courts for the worst of offences. I do not know how something that may be seen as a relatively soft option will help in those circumstances.
Colleagues have asked whether tagging will effectively stigmatise or brand the youngsters. Branding seems to me to be a trifle severe, and I presume that that was not a serious suggestion. However, I recognise that tagging might well become a status symbol, and I am not clear whether the Government have taken that into account. The Minister has not referred to it, but he must be aware that many youngsters dare each other to go further and further down the anti-social route. It can be a case of, "You break one window and I'll break two. You break two and I'll break three." How will the Government overcome the problem that tagging will be seen as a mark of honour or achievement?
The Minister must be aware many parents in the community are not worried by the anti-social behaviour of youngsters, but—in some circumstances—see it as a


badge of manhood. I am aware of youngsters who are encouraged in anti-social behaviour against other families in the area by their parents, who are engaged in a vendetta by proxy. The adults are well aware that gaol sentences could be imposed upon them were they to act as their youngsters do. What is there in the Government's proposals to deal with that?
The Government's proposal is designed to look good in the press, but it does not seriously address the real difficulties posed by a minority of extremely anti-social youngsters. If the Secretary of State wants to consider a method of restricting liberty, he should—rather than look to the new Tory symbol of tagging—go back to an old Tory symbol of penal servitude, the ball and chain, which at least would restrict youngsters and prevent them from running about the community. I look forward to the Secretary of State using that old Tory proposal as part of his general election manifesto.

Mr. Dalyell: I am extremely puzzled by this discussion, and I want to ask the Minister one question—where on earth did this notion of electronic tagging come from? I cannot believe that it came from the civil service. I was not on the Committee, but some of us have served on many Committees—including Kincraig—and tagging was always excluded in the past. By what alchemy did this idea infiltrate St. Andrew's house? I put forward one possible candidate— [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I am not going to, because it is a lobby—the lobby of the commercial security manufacturing interests. They are certainly at it. Some people could potentially make a good deal of money out of it.
The proposal has a lot to do with posturing or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put it, with "tokenism". That is what it is about because, if children's panels are excluded, jolly few are involved. Who dreamed this up?

Mr. Connarty: Anyone who looks at the record of the Standing Committee will see that I was firm that I found this proposal one of the most abhorrent of the Government's proposals for Scotland, even for adults. I have no doubt that the Government feel that they must do something because of the attacks that they have made on the structure of society and support for the family in the past 17 years. They are beginning to be aware that many factors in society have led to family breakdown, or even aberrant behaviour among parents, which is copied by children, many of whom live in dire poverty and under tremendous stress, who feel great anger against society for having failed them and their children.
The general spirit of the Bill seems to be that we must lock those people away for as long as possible, or that, with tagging, we should lock them into the very families and social units that may be failing them in the first place. The main theme is to keep them out of the hair of the middle and upper classes—the political classes the Government represent—who do not live in the schemes in which many of those children are first failed, then learn their social behaviour, and kick out against society. The middle and upper classes do not have to live among the tenements and the walk-up flats where many single-parent families are dumped because there is nowhere else for them, where they lose hope and where their children get out of control and become a major problem.
I see the Secretary of State having a good laugh. As we know, there are not that many schemes where he lives. The area in which he has chosen to put down his roots does not have that many people living in densely populated areas, either in Scotland or in London—whichever roots he feels most strongly these days.
The reality is that, if they take the trouble to visit them, many Conservative Back-Bench Members will find all this social malaise in the communities that they represent. The idea of tagging people and restricting them to live in that environment as adults is bad enough. It is bad because it does not work, it is expensive and it does not constrain their behaviour. Tagging can pinpoint them for a short time, but people find ways of getting out of the surveillance, and if they want to continue with their aberrant behaviour as adults, they will.
The idea of introducing the amendment for children of 16 years or below is even worse. How low does the Secretary of State expect it to go? If a family breaks down and children of eight, nine and 10 years old find that doing something anti-social is a way of working against society, is the Secretary of State suggesting that they will be tagged? Is he suggesting that eight-year-olds, six-year-olds or five-year-olds will be tagged—held in the home, under surveillance with an electronic bleeper on them, or whatever other technique we are going to use, until they are released into the nursery, only to continue their behaviour there?
That shows the fundamental flaw in all the theory behind the Bill. It is not about amending the wrongs that society has caused, or amending the behaviour of those who then retaliate against society. It is about locking them away somewhere for a short time or a long time. In the case of the children, it will be six months at home, presumably, with their tag on, and, if they leave between certain hours, a bleeper will go off and Group 4 or Securicor will rush in to find out where they have gone.
Tagging would not tackle the root problem, which is that, if young children are misbehaving in a regular anti-social pattern, something needs to be done about the environment in which they live. That must be done either by supporting the family or by finding some other area of care to supplement the family and turn failure into success; but that is not in the Government's mind.
In Committee, I said that I was struck sometimes when I saw social workers abandoning supervision orders on children who were no longer co-operating. They walked away from those children, and I am extremely angry about that. I have written a letter only today about one such case in my constituency. I would be much more interested in the Government introducing some structure in social work departments to supervise children and to give them a place where they could learn good behaviour and find something useful to do, perhaps after school. That would provide a better solution to their psychological and social problems than locking them in with the family in which those problems arose and putting a bleeper or buzzer on them. It is all wrong: the idea does not attract me for adults, and it appals me for children. I think that it also appals most of the public.
The Government have gone over the top, into what I have called a science fiction nightmare. For children, it is even worse. Someone asked where the idea came from, but I remember reading about it in 10-cent DC comics. It is Judge Dredd in the form of the Secretary of State for Scotland—although I recently saw a cartoon trying to claim that title for the Prime Minister.
The idea is an aberration and has not worked where it has been tried. The Government have caused most of the problems by exacerbating the feeling of alienation and the sense that society has failed people so badly that it is all right for them and for their children to kick back at it. I put it on record that I do not think that it is right to kick back against society. It is not right to attack or terrorise neighbours, or to break into shops and continually offend other people, but we must do something positive about it, not something silly and nonsensical that underlines the fact that in the Government's eyes there are two sections of society: those who are doing all right and those whom it is advisable to keep away from the people who are doing all right because they might cause some problems.
Have the Government ever thought that, if we took those people to our bosom and worked with them to turn them into positive citizens, we might save the next generation instead of locking it up? I hope that the amendment is kicked out, for the nonsense and the insult that it is.

Mrs. Adams: Is not this another case of "The higher you build the walls, the faster I will run"? The amendment would confine children to deprived areas, when we should be trying to get them out of those areas as often as possible. Often the problem is that those children never see the outside of those areas, and they should not be confined to them for ever.
The proposal would punish families who are already severely punished by poverty. Their greatest crime is that poverty has been visited on them and they cannot break out of it. We are telling children under 16 that they will never be allowed to break out of that circle.

Dr. Godman: I was not on the Committee, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me whether the Minister told members of the Committee where the clamping—presumably around the ankle—of the young offender would take place. Is it to take place in a police station or the youngster's home, and would the Group 4 people be escorted by police officers when carrying out the task? That is a practical question, unlike the question put by my

hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about who was the intellectual who came up with the idea. Where would the clamping be done?

Mrs. Adams: As far as I could gather in Committee, the clamp would be something like a wrist watch or an ankle watch.

Mr. Davidson: Or even an ankle chain.

Mrs. Adams: Yes, even an ankle chain. The offender would be confined to the place—the home—for about 12 hours. It would be linked to something like a modem, which would have to be installed in people's homes by the Government. That would not be cheap. If someone moved outwith the radius permitted, the bleeper would go off.

Mr. Maxton: That is interesting. To have a modem, one must have a telephone line, and therefore a telephone. Many of the homes of the children we are discussing cannot afford telephones. Will the Government provide free telephones to everyone?

Mrs. Adams: We raised that point in Committee and were told that the Government would provide telephones, but only a single line for the modem.

Mr. McFall: May I take the matter a stage further? If telephone lines are to be installed, what would happen if people did not pay their bills?

Mrs. Adams: We never got round to that. We were told that, once again, the taxpayer would meet the cost of installing—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ENVIRONMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Stephen be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Nigel Evans be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — TREASURY

Ordered,
That Mr. Matthew Carrington be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Jacques Arnold be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]
Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.